Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

No Bank that was bailed out should be allowed to keep profits/pay a dividend for 5 years - agree?

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Major banks that quite literally almost destroyed the global economy, received billions in taxpayer loans, had billions more toxic debt guaranteed, gambled their(our) money with careless policies are once again making profits.

Goldman Sachs sees bumper profit
Citigroup, Bank Of America Post Strong Results

UPDATE 4-Wells Fargo credit losses dampen record profit

But:


Second-quarter profit applicable to Wells Fargo shareholders rose 47 percent to $2.58 billion, or 57 cents per share, from $1.75 billion, or 53 cents, a year earlier.


This is absolutely the most blatant act of criminality I have seen in the business world. How can banks that CAUSED the recession, once again be allowed to post profits and pay dividends to shareholders, when it's the ordinary taxpayers who are suffering from their disastrous mistakes?

I suggest that for five years, no bank or company that recieved bailout money be allowed to make a profit, or at least keep that profit and pay dividends. Until the global recession is over, they should be forced to pay their profits to all those that have lost their homes, jobs and futures because of their mistakes. The money should go back to the taxpayer, and all those that lost their jobs should file a class action lawsuit against these thieves and swindlers.


They caused the recession, they should now pay for it.



[edit on 22-7-2009 by kiwifoot]




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I still think the banks should have failed.

One thing I noticed was regional banks, the ones who aren't 100billion dollar companies -- you know, the kind that you probably have throughout your state, but nowhere else -- those banks went up in value by quite a bit.

But once the bailout happened, their stock fell significantly.

Investors got the idea right away -- the big institutions that fleece the taxpayer weren't going to go under, and in fact their share prices weren't bottoming out, they were just on sale.

What ended up happening was many banks have 200%, 300%, 400%, 500%, etc returns in under 3 months. So there was no reason to invest in regional banks anymore.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


I'm with you Kiwi. We get to try and survive on rock soup and tree bark and they get to sleep in silk off of our dime. Not liking it one bit.

You draft the legislation and I'll sign it.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


They should have to pay off their TARP money before they profit, it wasn't just a loan to the banks it was Survival money for the Banks. I want that paid back as soon as possible and hit them with late charges if they pay it back a day too late.......it's only fitting that they get the same treatment they give their average customer. Of course they get to donate 1,000's of dollars to each Congressman and Senator, so that won't be happening.

I would like to see of list of the Lobbying and Donations $$$$ done by each Bank.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


You can find that out here: www.govtrack.us...

Edit: Here's Goldman Sachs, for instance: www.opensecrets.org...

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Kaytagg]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I am with you too!

It makes me sick that this is happening, These pigs making profit off the sweat and blood of Americans, profit should be made on loans for non essential items. They should not be allowed to profit from loans that we need to have a roof over our heads, they should charge just enough to cover processing, administrative cost's, etc. Disgusting.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Racial profiling for banks


Baltimore Sues Wells Fargo


The city's mayor says bank targeted African-American neighborhoods for 'abusive subprime lending.'
Link



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Make it ten years.
And all management forced to continue working on minimum wage...
Oh, and maybe they should lose their homes too....that might wake some up...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by lucentenigma
 


They should be able to profit from home loans, how else would they cover the expenses they incur when people fail to pay off their mortgage?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 



Im not smart in any of this but the banks who got bailed out ,,they still go after the defunct loans/credit cards,,etc and harass people...

there has got to be something in return to the taxpayers,,,!!

I think a lot of it was greed and stupidity,,,they should insure more that the loans can be paid and not rely on confinscating your house,,car...

and the credit card companies sell their bad debts like a "wall street" for pennies on the dollar,,yet then the buyers of them want the full amount and tack on 30-40% interest!!

Im all for everyone making a buck but not to the point of corruption!!!

I always thought the democrats were more for the working man but both parties stink and are corrupt!!!

huggs everyone



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by lucentenigma
 


They should be able to profit from home loans, how else would they cover the expenses they incur when people fail to pay off their mortgage?


They keep your home and kick you to the curb when you fail to pay your mortgage.

Say you have a home worth 200k, Bob pay's off $50k on the mortgage before he loses his business. Bob can't make the payment any longer, the bank kicks Bob out and sells Bob's home for $200k. Bank keeps the 50k Bob paid towards principle and interest and get's to sell the house for the full value.

Seems like a pretty good deal for the banks, if someone pays off a good chunk of the mortgage plus interest and then falls behind.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by lucentenigma]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by lucentenigma
 


That is not always the case. Look at how many houses they are getting back in foreclosure that are actually worth less now then what the person borrowed to buy it. Plus add in realty fees, legal fees, processing fees, etc...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


Understand the terms fractional reserve banking, fiat money, selling CDO's to secondary markets as triple-A credit and receiving 100% payback from AIG and you'll understand that banks are in a win-win situation and will never, ever own negative equity houses, hence all of them now posting huge profits; the bare-faced cheek.


Sympathy for banks = zero. They should all be lynched, especially Goldman Sachs and Obama, who's administration consists of many Goldman-ites.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


You do have a point, but it is the bank's fault in the first place there was an artificial housing boom, and thier falt for giving out easy mortgages and credit, and theor fault the system collapsed, so they shold pick up the tab!






top topics



 
6

log in

join