Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses
By Kara Rowland
In a bid to toughen up on Wall Street, the Obama administration next month will ask Congress to impose a new tax on big financial firms, with the president arguing they have to pay for sending the world's financial system into chaos. ( Hmmm... )
( makes you wonder just what was in that book that Hugo Chavez gave to Obama. A blueprint for takeover perhaps? )
The fee would cover all applicable Wall Street banks -- including those that did not accept any money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- as the White House argues all firms benefited from the bailout, even if only indirectly. It would be assessed on a bank's liabilities, or its assets minus its core capital, the official said, adding that deposits already facing a separate assessment would be exempt.
( You have to LOVE this next part. You can't punish the unions you know )
The fee would not include U.S. automakers, who have received more than $75 billion in TARP funds. The official said that's because the fee is designed for financial institutions and does not work "for a more industrial company." The administration likewise determined taxing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would "not be productive for the taxpayer."
Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses - Washington Times
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, rampaging Wall Street has brought our nation to its knees, they need more regulating and this tax is a good start.
The automakers don't lend out money. What they DO, in addition to selling vehicles, is employ a helluva lot of people, including small businesses that support their industry.
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, rampaging Wall Street has brought our nation to its knees, they need more regulating and this tax is a good start.
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, rampaging Wall Street has brought our nation to its knees, they need more regulating and this tax is a good start.
Are you telling us that there were no regulations already in place upon the financial industry at the time of the alleged crime??? Because really, I think that'd be a nonsensical thing to suggest.
The regulations were in place. But they were ineffectual due to a legislative body who prioritizes politics and vote-buying over common sense. These lending institutions were operating under the regulations established for them. Otherwise, you'd see people going to prison.
Sorry, but I know too many people personally who have been devasted financially by what started as a huge securities ripoff by the very lending institutions which apparently now have your deepest sympathy, as they fully intend to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again.
The intricacies of those hellish deals are still not completely understood, even by economists holding Ph.D's. Who knew until the night before that even BofA was also in trouble? Do we really know that's on the books of BB&T? What do you suppose they intend to do with the troubled assets they recently purchased from bankrupt Colonial Bank? Nobody else wanted that albatross. As Paulson reminded everyone at the pinnacle of this disaster, with the banking industry, it's all about "liquidity."
You can defend them all you want and inject your political ideology to justify that, but if anyone's going to prison, it should be the greedy bastards who thought they could get away with it.
The circus will begin once this gets to Congress, which must approve it, so until then I wouldn't get my panties in a wad.
The automakers don't lend out money. What they DO, in addition to selling vehicles, is employ a helluva lot of people, including small businesses that support their industry.
The banking industry employs alot of people. And by lending capital to small businesses, they promote expansion and job growth. Those same small businesses that support the auto industry probably got their start-up money from the banks.
If it's all about "getting our money back", I don't see why we shouldn't be going to the people who actually got our money.
Sorry, but I know too many people personally who have been devasted financially by what started as a huge securities ripoff by the very lending institutions which apparently now have your deepest sympathy, as they fully intend to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again.
The intricacies of those hellish deals are still not completely understood, even by economists holding Ph.D's. Who knew until the night before that even BofA was also in trouble? Do we really know that's on the books of BB&T? What do you suppose they intend to do with the troubled assets they recently purchased from bankrupt Colonial Bank? Nobody else wanted that albatross. As Paulson reminded everyone at the pinnacle of this disaster, with the banking industry, it's all about "liquidity."
You can defend them all you want and inject your political ideology to justify that, but if anyone's going to prison, it should be the greedy bastards who thought they could get away with it.
Maggie, these people were operating their businesses under the regulations laid upon them by Congress. And hell yeah, some were certainly taking advantage. But that's the REASON we bother with regulation at all... to keep that from happening.
The proposed "fees" are politically motivated. They're designed to cause division through class warfare, to unify the base, and to deflect the blame for poor regulation and poor enforcement.... to cover their own asses. This administration is harnessing the misery of our economically wounded citizens to its own advantage as political capital.
Of course, both parties share in the guilt, but people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who have spent their careers making an unholy mess of this thing are riding point on it. Instead of taking responsibility for their own screw-ups, now that their incompetence has created REAL DAMAGE, they're pointing the finger of blame at somebody else. Worse... they're doing the same things that caused the problems. Again, loosening lending standards and guaranteeing risky loans.
It's like bad parenting really. Leave the cookie jar out on the floor without explicit instruction to stay out of it, and then blame the kids when they take a cookie. Greed is as common to human nature as compassion. The whole purpose of "regulating" is to confine it.
For our purposes on this thread, it's not about "political ideology"... it's simpler than that. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Our national ideology abhors punishment without trial or any other kind of deviation from the assumption of innocence until guilt is PROVED. So, if the financial industry, or members of it, broke the law... why aren't they being tried and then punished?
You know, if it weren't for "political ideology" and manipulated class division, I feel confident that we'd all agree that 'Extortion is always wrong' and that 'Guilt should be established before punishment'. I think, again if it weren't for "political ideology" and manipulated class division, we'd likely both agree that the law should be applied to all Americans EQUALLY and without bias.
The circus will begin once this gets to Congress, which must approve it, so until then I wouldn't get my panties in a wad.
They plan to attach it to the 2011 Budget Bill and have it effective by June. They're hoping that by "harnessing" the anger of voters, we won't make a ruckus about it when they bring the budget to the floor... and that by directing this anger onto the banks, we won't remember who REALLY caused this mess come November.
The automakers don't lend out money. What they DO, in addition to selling vehicles, is employ a helluva lot of people, including small businesses that support their industry.
The banking industry employs alot of people. And by lending capital to small businesses, they promote expansion and job growth. Those same small businesses that support the auto industry probably got their start-up money from the banks.
If it's all about "getting our money back", I don't see why we shouldn't be going to the people who actually got our money.
And that appears to be the crux of the problem: THEY'RE NOT DOING IT!! Sure, the banking industry employs a lot of people, and a lot of banking employees seem to benefit from humongous perks and bonuses, too.
Political motivation? At this point, I really wonder just who is politicizing this. If Republicans were in charge and proposed such a "fee" (because the public is very, very angry at mega-banks these days), I do believe Republicans/conservatives/whateverpeoplecallthemselvestoday would be shouting hallelelujah.
What's really sad is that such ploys are needed at all. If we didn't have a just-say-no Republican minority, which is already exploiting this issue so that there's no way in hell it won't be "remembered," some kind of bipartisan solution could be had.
Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses
By Kara Rowland
In a bid to toughen up on Wall Street, the Obama administration next month will ask Congress to impose a new tax on big financial firms, with the president arguing they have to pay for sending the world's financial system into chaos. ( Hmmm... )
( makes you wonder just what was in that book that Hugo Chavez gave to Obama. A blueprint for takeover perhaps? )
The fee would cover all applicable Wall Street banks -- including those that did not accept any money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- as the White House argues all firms benefited from the bailout, even if only indirectly. It would be assessed on a bank's liabilities, or its assets minus its core capital, the official said, adding that deposits already facing a separate assessment would be exempt.
( You have to LOVE this next part. You can't punish the unions you know )
The fee would not include U.S. automakers, who have received more than $75 billion in TARP funds. The official said that's because the fee is designed for financial institutions and does not work "for a more industrial company." The administration likewise determined taxing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would "not be productive for the taxpayer."
Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses - Washington Times
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, rampaging Wall Street has brought our nation to its knees, they need more regulating and this tax is a good start.
Indeed. It's a scramble to be able to say in the Spring that they are trying to curb the ballooning deficit, they created.Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses
By Kara Rowland
In a bid to toughen up on Wall Street, the Obama administration next month will ask Congress to impose a new tax on big financial firms, with the president arguing they have to pay for sending the world's financial system into chaos. ( Hmmm... )
( makes you wonder just what was in that book that Hugo Chavez gave to Obama. A blueprint for takeover perhaps? )
The fee would cover all applicable Wall Street banks -- including those that did not accept any money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- as the White House argues all firms benefited from the bailout, even if only indirectly. It would be assessed on a bank's liabilities, or its assets minus its core capital, the official said, adding that deposits already facing a separate assessment would be exempt.
( You have to LOVE this next part. You can't punish the unions you know )
The fee would not include U.S. automakers, who have received more than $75 billion in TARP funds. The official said that's because the fee is designed for financial institutions and does not work "for a more industrial company." The administration likewise determined taxing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would "not be productive for the taxpayer."
Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses - Washington Times
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, rampaging Wall Street has brought our nation to its knees, they need more regulating and this tax is a good start.
This tax has abslutely nothing to do with regulation.
Weren't those financial institutions that didn't take bailout money subject to the "stress tests"?
The "trials" you speak of was simply looking at their balance sheets. There are "trials" going on right now in congressional hearings trying to establish just how secure they are and will continue to be, now that it's back to business as usual.
Do you want business as usual with these guys? I sure don't.
BB&T didn't fail the "stress test". They were well-capitalized. Their balance sheet was fine.
But they were strong-armed anyway, as were others.
It wouldn't matter. You'd still holler that he's imposing a new requirement on "free markets." Screw all the damage that some of those "free markets" are "free" to do. The fee being imposed right now on lenders is a temporary one anyway, until the TARP money is fully repaid.
You mistake Republicanism if you think Republicans don't recognize the need for some regulation. We do. But just like with any other legislation, there are intended and unintended consequences. We like regulation to be used as minimally as possible and only at clear need.
Let us not forget, there were LOTS of regulations already in place before this crisis. But they weren't getting the job done, weren't well enforced, and were actively encouraging lenders to lower their lending standards.
At the bottom line, this is a populist shake-down of the financial industry from Washington. You or I would face PRISON if we emulated them. And just because these financial industries are unpopular and the "fee" is supposedly temporary... doesn't make it right.
Sorry, but I know too many people personally who have been devasted financially by what started as a huge securities ripoff by the very lending institutions which apparently now have your deepest sympathy, as they fully intend to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again.
The intricacies of those hellish deals are still not completely understood, even by economists holding Ph.D's. Who knew until the night before that even BofA was also in trouble? Do we really know that's on the books of BB&T? What do you suppose they intend to do with the troubled assets they recently purchased from bankrupt Colonial Bank? Nobody else wanted that albatross. As Paulson reminded everyone at the pinnacle of this disaster, with the banking industry, it's all about "liquidity."
You can defend them all you want and inject your political ideology to justify that, but if anyone's going to prison, it should be the greedy bastards who thought they could get away with it.
Ok... GM and Chrysler are big employers that were deemed too big to fail. They took taxpayer money to bailout the poor decisions their management teams had made. So to insure that we, the taxpayers, never have to bail out their future bad decisions, we should assess fines on Ford. Under the Obama ( and Maggie ) plan wouldn't that make sense?
The automakers don't lend out money. What they DO, in addition to selling vehicles, is employ a helluva lot of people, including small businesses that support their industry.
Sorry, but I know too many people personally who have been devasted financially by what started as a huge securities ripoff by the very lending institutions which apparently now have your deepest sympathy, as they fully intend to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again.
The intricacies of those hellish deals are still not completely understood, even by economists holding Ph.D's. Who knew until the night before that even BofA was also in trouble? Do we really know that's on the books of BB&T? What do you suppose they intend to do with the troubled assets they recently purchased from bankrupt Colonial Bank? Nobody else wanted that albatross. As Paulson reminded everyone at the pinnacle of this disaster, with the banking industry, it's all about "liquidity."
You can defend them all you want and inject your political ideology to justify that, but if anyone's going to prison, it should be the greedy bastards who thought they could get away with it.
Maggie, these people were operating their businesses under the regulations laid upon them by Congress. And hell yeah, some were certainly taking advantage. But that's the REASON we bother with regulation at all... to keep that from happening.
The proposed "fees" are politically motivated. They're designed to cause division through class warfare, to unify the base, and to deflect the blame for poor regulation and poor enforcement.... to cover their own asses. This administration is harnessing the misery of our economically wounded citizens to its own advantage as political capital.
Of course, both parties share in the guilt, but people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who have spent their careers making an unholy mess of this thing are riding point on it. Instead of taking responsibility for their own screw-ups, now that their incompetence has created REAL DAMAGE, they're pointing the finger of blame at somebody else. Worse... they're doing the same things that caused the problems. Again, loosening lending standards and guaranteeing risky loans.
It's like bad parenting really. Leave the cookie jar out on the floor without explicit instruction to stay out of it, and then blame the kids when they take a cookie. Greed is as common to human nature as compassion. The whole purpose of "regulating" is to confine it.
For our purposes on this thread, it's not about "political ideology"... it's simpler than that. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Our national ideology abhors punishment without trial or any other kind of deviation from the assumption of innocence until guilt is PROVED. So, if the financial industry, or members of it, broke the law... why aren't they being tried and then punished?
You know, if it weren't for "political ideology" and manipulated class division, I feel confident that we'd all agree that 'Extortion is always wrong' and that 'Guilt should be established before punishment'. I think, again if it weren't for "political ideology" and manipulated class division, we'd likely both agree that the law should be applied to all Americans EQUALLY and without bias.
Political motivation? At this point, I really wonder just who is politicizing this. If Republicans were in charge and proposed such a "fee" [I](because the public is very, very angry at mega-banks these days)[/I], I do believe Republicans/conservatives/whateverpeoplecallthemselvestoday would be shouting hallelelujah.
