Obama Weighs Fee to Recoup Bank Bailout and Cut Deficit

I am still wondering where our dividend checks are for our massive investment in these failed financial institutions.

I mean it has been a few quarters since we invested in these banks, isn't it prudent to pay your investors?

In other news, some banks have been paying back TARP funds. It's not like this money is permanently gone.



Source: www.crainsnewyork.com...#

reply to post by whatukno


A prudent investor yes, would want to know where the return on their investment is or isn't.

The federal government has shown time and time again it is horrible at prudence and thus really doesn't care.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

A prudent investor yes, would want to know where the return on their investment is or isn't.

I mean the ones that have paid back the tarp funds, fine, do what you want, you paid back America, so I guess you can pay your employees whatever.

The ones that haven't, where is our dividend check?? I don't know cause I haven't invested in anything long enough to earn a dividend off of it, but what is the going rate?

The federal government has shown time and time again it is horrible at prudence and thus really doesn't care.

Thats right, the Federal Government doesn't have a freaking clue how to handle money, and they don't care to learn either.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ziggystrange


Z - OBE I jammed too much in it's not smooth.


O - I agree that people for it are either of those two things. The problem is, and this isn't a slight on you, because I fall under this category also, is the little knowledge of economics that as a general populace we have.

Z - Agreed, my experience is working in Market Research for 16 yrs, Economic Development for 5 years, 5 in big Corps introducing computer technology, 1 at a green credit card company, then 7, at a major investment Bank as a Technology consultant. I retired in 2000 from consulting. I do R&D for my own businesses now. I'm out of Investment Banking for 10 years. But I know exactly how it works, in detail. However, I'm not an Economist. My background is in Market Research, Computer Science, and Physics.

O - I am also in agreement that not to do anything at all would be worse, but allowing a business to fail because of flawed practices (nefarious or not) doesn't mean nothing was done, as that is the nature of a free-market. Some fail, some succeed. Those with sound business practices that are not cutting corners, 'persuading' the government to provide a comfy environment (as in the massive lobbying done to stifle competition), and balanced books will have a higher chance of meeting the needs of their market. Whereas these banks are being rewarded in a way of having all those pitfalls I just listed and still operate in a manner that isn't much different than it was pre-bailout.

Z - We agree on criminality. I saw this first hand. If you are familiar with "attribution analysis", you understand. Insider trading is rampant. You know it's done, but "prove" it? They do it during lunch, on the bus, from home, fake names, etc. I saw nothing of NOW conspiracies, but ???

Z - It's screwed, fix, overhaul, whatever. Here is the problem. IB is just the tip of the iceberg. It's been a global house of cards for 30+ years. It's subject to "The Butterfly Effect". Not saying a Banking Institution can't fail, or shouldn't. Like with a HOC, the BI or card that falls is either critical/not critical to the stability of the structure.

This is not theory. I understand the logic, I designed systems to replace ones with y2k problems, plus, an attribution analysis system, account review and management, and integrated accounting systems. I'm a geek, I understand complex systems because that's what I do. These were for the IB. I know banking logic, M&A, trading, commodities, derivatives, industry classification, weights, interrelation, degrees of dependencies, risk, debt flow, the whole ball of wax, from a logistics point of view. I had to learn it.

Z - I don't know which BI would tip the 1st domino, or be a critical Butterfly Effect catalyst. I know more than one fit one, or more of the categories, and likely all fit in some way. The ties to international BIs, and other economic interests is a puzzle of epic proportions. The structure has a weak foundation. It's built and maintained by hybrid instruments, and non existent inflated assets, with subjective valuations, all interdependent it's a nightmare of complexity.

The risk of collapse is real. The entire global economic system, is a 3d matrix. It's a massive bubble, if it pops it's all over. We don't have to keep it, but the deconstruction is like brain surgery, which has to be congruent and simultaneous with (re)construction which must adhere to a narrow critical path, with a high degree of confidence, which means it has to be tightly controlled. Deregulation must be merit based, not profit driven.
Don't kill me yet OBE there is a point to all this.

Z - Enter State. D.O.C. DIV EC.DEV., 1970s. Rural NY dying. Commerce nil NYC, wanted it's share + wanted more Fed bucks allocated. The state had to act. Mills shut down in Cohoes, Borscht belt was finished, tanning was done, construction not an option. No fishing, little shipping on the Hudson. Skiing industry had been good but was waning. Ec Dev was a matter of survival for millions.

Z - A Commissioner named Dyson, dreamt up the ILNY campaign, sold the idea to the State and NYC. I did the mkt research. Exception to the rule, kicked off an economic recovery, and saved the rural economy. Not all towns thrived, key ones did. The Fed was involved. Tax abatement schedules were created I wrote the software. Every county in the state was analyzed to be matched to industry, and small business profiles. Demographics from Census data used. Offered abatement rate schedules on a sliding scale from 0 to ? taxes for X years, if you move/start a business y size, in community z. Ombudsmen were recruited from Sr Citz to advise small business owners on a volunteer basis. It worked. Businesses responded, did math, some moved, some not, enough did, people had jobs. The State recovered. Everybody won, except for the poor statewide. Contracting was good in the warm months, dead in winter. Welfare was not a problem, it was a necessity, people had to eat. Not lazy, just not sustainable. Welfare? yes, cheats? yes. Limits? yes. Problems, yes. End of world? no.

Taxpayer money wasted. I resigned over that after 5 yrs there. State workers do the minimum for the most, and getting a bigger budget is a big deal. CYA rules. I went back to NYC and small business. So far 45 yrs working have a lot of experience.

I have seen a lot of ideas here, some have merit on some level. But what I come out with every time I analyze based on current state, the answer comes back disaster. People propose sweeping changes with no accounting for cause and effect, and totally ignore interrelation. If you do this, then what happens is that. If the tactics sink the ship, the strategy is irrelevant.

I don't pretend to have answers, I don't, I spot a "no go" pretty fast. If it breaks a support beam, the frame comes down period. The idea of a sound monetary system is great, but if it's impossible in practice, or collapses the structure, it won't work, and you don't want it. I understand we've been duped, and robbed, but shooting ourselves to prove a point is not the answer. What if? There is no room for error.

Smarter people than me have to think it through and address it.
I love Freedom, and the Constitution, I'm not blind. I have to consider what I know. Rhetoric is words global economics is science..

TBC

Ziggy

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ziggystrange


O - Another aspect of this all is the president set of the bail-outs. Not a slippery-slope argument, but rather one of where big companies like this always keeping in the back of their minds that if they are failing, they can always go to the government and make a case that they are 'too big to fail'.

Z - The BIs, and FreddieM, and AIG were smack in the middle of an impending economic collapse. I agree with you that like in small and other businesses, if you screw up, you tank. The tech bubble took down a lot of dangerous precursors. The GOV did not interfere because they are corrupt, not stupid. This happened under Clinton. His admin was not doling out money to business. A market correction was what was needed, it happened, people lost money and learned lessons.

O - Truly nothing has been fixed, except now instead of the free-market providing the capital, the Federal Government is now providing the capital for these companies. That alone should be enough to be scared of. If private investors do not see it as a viable option, the government should not either.

Z - Agreed, it's not fixed. It's in the early stages of the process of being fixed. But like I tried to explain in the 1st part. Desperate times sometimes really call for desperate measures, like the bailout. If a person, or group decides to only look at 1 % of the equation, they will never understand the problem, or the solution. This is not directed at you, but the populace.

Z - Investors know exactly what is going on. Most are not wealthy, and have made positions conservative, and long term. Day trading is a problem since it destabilizes, and creates trends based on subjective positioning by knee jerk reactions to market ebb and flow. The last thing investors hope for is being bailed out. I lost money in the pop. I had some shares my wife got from her job, the value skyrocketed, then collapsed, I was broke, but that's life. To want a bailout means you are tanking. Investors don't want to tank.

Z - Investors have always been involved in floating businesses by throwing money at issues. They can because it's their money. Gov should not be in the business of bailouts, but Gov has to be involved in economic health, and recovery. All of this presumes legality, and transparency.

O - Look at the late 90s when the dot.com bubble burst. There were a lot of companies and start-ups that tanked and A LOT of people lost all their wealth in these. Where was the outrage to prop these companies up? Why didn't the government step in and make sure they were able to stay afloat?

Z - Because there was no threat of global catastrophe, just a lot of neo wealthy people crying in their soup. No threat at all to the global economy, it was a healthy reaction to inflated valuations, and spurious IPOs inflated by madness, and blind eyes to the obvious result.

O - The entrepreneurs of that era either conceded defeat and went back to work or they matured their businesses and business models to fit what the market wants. All without the government stepping in and trying to 'fix' the situation.

Z - As it should be. I'm out there with no parachute, if I tank, it's on me.

O - I will say though and I really think this is part of the problem is, a bubble like the dot.com one, the government wasn't dipping their hands into that market (at least not in the way they were in the financial institutions); whereas financial institutions and the housing market has Federal fingerprints all over the place.

Z - Precisely. The GOV had/has no business being in the loop as accomplices with Wall street, but they were, and have been since the conservative movement brought to fruition trickle down economics, which is redistribution up to the wealthy, expecting the wealthy to then create a healthy economy by using these moneys to further boost commerce and free trade. But that is not what happened. What happened is the wealthy kept the money and went into trust funds, hoarding, sending the money to foreign interest where criminal acts are legal, ponzi schemes, creating the trend to outsource anything possible, and bypass the benefits to American small business, and the people. Deregulation hobbled the American economy, which was great news for the very rich. Now you can rape the American people, legally. This is an key causation mechanism of the problem, that has to be reversed, or ameliorated within the scope of a global economy.

Z - The global economy may depend on our stability, but that does not mean we can just cut and run, it means the opposite. We are part of the structure that sustains all economies.
We are inextricably set in stone as a major participant in a global economic arena. If we make the changes proposed just to quell the screams of the slightly informed, the whole thing will enter into a death spiral, that can't be stopped. If what a person has in mind is an instant economic apocalypse, then that would do it. Sure, a small percent of the people would survive, but the new free America, would have only one job, and that would be nothing but a combination of farmer, soldier, and jailer/executor of the non productive, to survive long enough to be invaded by the other survivors of global collapse.

O - The government already had a vested interest in the banks as they were trying to use it as a social engineering tool. When that failed, just as all government projects, they don't want to abandon; rather they wish to throw more money at it.

Z - The government is a Social Engineering tool, in practice if not definition. That is exactly what is being proposed by the groups advocating instant 180s
on all policies that are accused of violating their rights. The problem is that it's based on emotion, and rhetoric not facts, and viable solutions.

A real problem is being used as an excuse to impose ideologically designed solutions to a set of gripes, that have merit, but are not relevant the issue at hand.

Additionally, not you OBE but some would take the opportunity to create a nation ruled by bigotry, and designed with fascist "order" in mind, ruled by individual majority in intolerant oppressive microcosms.

That's not what America is about, and we would be insane to do it. It's assured extinction by attrition, if not external subjugation.

End part 2

Ziggy.

I thank you for all that Ziggy.

There was a time I was thinking of going into CIS and I wanted to do systems analysis. Unfortunately life happened and I was immature and was unable to juggle the things happening.

Mainly I just fear that on the informal message boards of ATS there is more discussion of ideas and thoughts into the current situation than there is in the halls of our Congress.

As I am not as schooled in all you have spoken about (although I know have the much more knowledge in thanks to you) I cannot reply to most of what you have written.

The one thing that I can reply on is the social engineering aspect and maybe I can expand as to what I meant regarding it. It is also amazing to see how much is interconnected. Talking about recouping bank fees will get us to dig deeper and deeper into the situation as to have a better understanding of it all.....will our leaders do the same?

When I referred to the government using the banks as a social engineering mechanism I was referring to the regulations that were imposed upon some of the mortgage lenders to reduce their lending practices to include people that should have no business in their current financial situation to obtain mortgages.

The government knew they could not declare that everyone should own a home and they will provide. Doing so would require massive amounts of legislation and possibly an amendment to the Constitution to institute such a program.

What they did know is they could regulate. They could regulate the financial industry to change their lending practices while giving them a shell financial backing (that was never really there) to fall back on when the practice backfired.

Regulations on debt-to-income ratios were reduced and all of sudden you have thousands upon thousands of new mortgage applications that are falsified, whisked through regardless of credit or income, ability to pay, etc. All in the name of providing the American Dream to more and more people. This is my main beef with the current state of politics....Government doesn't enable the American Dream, people do.

As the government put in regulations that allowed mortgages such as ARMs and other schemes to be perpetuated by the big banks, the banks bit. They bit hard and they got greedy. They found a new way to make money that was enabled and legal by the government regulations put in place.

I think this is why many people are a bit uneasy in the health care area too. They know how government handles things and they know they are not out for the people but rather ways of manipulating the economy the way they see fit, not the way the economy sees fit for the market.

I am undereducated in this area except for some basics, but as I read more and study more and dig more I become more and more understanding of it all.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

O - I thank you for all that Ziggy.
Z - Thank you OBE

O - Mainly I just fear that on the informal message boards of ATS there is more discussion of ideas and thoughts into the current situation than there is in the halls of our Congress.

Z - Here we start to converge. Good point.

O - The one thing that I can reply on is the social engineering aspect and maybe I can expand as to what I meant regarding it. It is also amazing to see how much is interconnected. Talking about recouping bank fees will get us to dig deeper and deeper into the situation as to have a better understanding of it all.....will our leaders do the same?

Z - I did not even try to go deeper, but it was amazing to me when I saw it. It was frightening. I just heard Obama say, the banks had to use the Bonus money to pay the fees, and not pass it down to the people. That sounds right. I agree that this issue will force people to look. I absolutely agree that this should not be passed on to the taxpayers.

O - When I referred to the government using the banks as a social engineering mechanism I was referring to the regulations that were imposed upon some of the mortgage lenders to reduce their lending practices to include people that should have no business in their current financial situation to obtain mortgages.

Z - There you know more than I do. If you can point me to that, I'll educate myself. I really don't know. But I agree that to get financed, you have to show the ability to repay.

O - The government knew they could not declare that everyone should own a home and they will provide. Doing so would require massive amounts of legislation and possibly an amendment to the Constitution to institute such a program.

Z - Was this Clinton? To me it sounds insane to want to legislate home ownership, or "act" to incentive it. I can see a leader saying "You should strive hard to purchase a home".

O - What they did know is they could regulate. They could regulate the financial industry to change their lending practices while giving them a shell financial backing (that was never really there) to fall back on when the practice backfired.

Z - Sounds like you're saying is, "In Ziggy talk"

Some regulations were imposed on the finance companies to lower some criterion to force them to allow low income people to get unqualified loans.

Z - If that's the case, I would agree 100% this is meddling, and sounds illegal. Expand if you want, as I am at a loss for information if I understood correctly.

O - Regulations on debt-to-income ratios were reduced and all of sudden you have thousands upon thousands of new mortgage applications that are falsified, whisked through regardless of credit or income, ability to pay, etc.

Z - This I recognize, and have always felt was the problem with deregulation, if you let people pick willi nilli, what criteria to use to approve Mortgages, the risk goes to the roof, and they can, and do create instruments to hide the practices.

O - All in the name of providing the American Dream to more and more people. This is my main beef with the current state of politics....Government doesn't enable the American Dream, people do.

Z - I would say the Constitution says you have a right to pursue it, and the Gov is tasked with making sure you have that right, and no one may take it from you. Anywhere in the union or it's territories. Pursuit does not equal attain. Some make it, some don't.

O - I think this is why many people are a bit uneasy in the health care area too. They know how government handles things and they know they are not out for the people but rather ways of manipulating the economy the way they see fit, not the way the economy sees fit for the market.

Z - I understand the conundrum, how to trust what is being done? and for who's benefit. I think you would agree the answer to this is a key point in how a person can decide how they feel about it. Support, or opposition, depends on who it benefits, who it hurts, and what it represents.

O - I am undereducated in this area except for some basics, but as I read more and study more and dig more I become more and more understanding of it all.

Z - I also lack foundation in the Health Care debate if you mean that, but it's the same problem for me if you meant the Mortgage issues. On health care I have opinions, but not for this thread. I'm not happy with the bill, but I'll take it as foreplay.

I have some room on this post, so I'll just go live with you on the OP.



I'll be the first to say that just the President stating it on National TV as a fact. Does not mean it is until it's passed, on paper, and in granular detail. Then if it's done, it has to be enforced, specially the part about to not pass it on to the taxpayers by sneaky loopholes, or inflating some other fee passed on to the public. It's supposed to be 90 billion over 10 years.

I say there he is, telling us what he's going to do with this. Let's judge him on how close it comes to what he's saying. I want that money back under those conditions. We gave it to them, they have to pay us back, "really" not by appearances. The banks are going to try to do it, pass it on to us, let's see how tight the rules are, and how well it's enforced.

More talk. But If it's true then they are thinking.

Source CNBC Treasury Secretary Geithner States.

"This policy is not designed to punish," Geithner said. "We're doing it in a way that is in effect a tax on leverage. It's a tax on risk in some ways, and it's born by the people that benefited most from the crisis. That seems fair."

Geithner said the cost of the crisis will be about $100 billion, far lower than many predicted. But the administration still has a "legal obligation" to cover the cost, he said.

Geithner on the Bank Levy and Bailout Cost
Timothy Gheitner

So it goes to my earlier statement that I see a slow recovery under way.
If he's full of it, then let's all get together and demand he get canned.

But if he's right, and the crisis winds up costing 100 Billion and we get it back as a tax on risk , not passed on to the taxpayer. Then what do we say?

This would mean that not only do we get it back, but it serves as a deterrent from the behavior that tanked them to begin with. If true most would have to agree it's good use of centralized government in action.

WOW OBE, not one single angry moment.

Cheers

Ziggy

The banks are an essential part to our economy.

They ARE to big to fail without completely re-doing everything (which might require some down time...).

Since the banks run this economy, they literally get to pay themselves what they want (to an extent).

Both sides realize this (government and banks).

This tax will do almost nothing I fear. Obama could just cut this tax off the national debt or give it out to states and it would have the same impact.

The markets are controlled, and when they start tipping the only people who have the power to recover them are the government and banks combined. This is through the bailouts.

But playing with the markets to much leads to a loss of real money, and everything becomes artificial.

I am not economist but that is how I view things.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
The banks are an essential part to our economy.

They ARE to big to fail without completely re-doing everything (which might require some down time...).

Since the banks run this economy, they literally get to pay themselves what they want (to an extent).

Both sides realize this (government and banks).

This tax will do almost nothing I fear. Obama could just cut this tax off the national debt or give it out to states and it would have the same impact.

The markets are controlled, and when they start tipping the only people who have the power to recover them are the government and banks combined. This is through the bailouts.

But playing with the markets to much leads to a loss of real money, and everything becomes artificial.

I am not economist but that is how I view things.

Thanks for posting.

I agree with you on most of what you posted.

Quote
This tax will do almost nothing I fear. Obama could just cut this tax off the national debt or give it out to states and it would have the same impact.
End Quote

How exactly does Obama cut the tax off the National debt?


Cheers,

Ziggy Strange

reply to post by ziggystrange


Sounds like a great idea! But that is the problem...it sounds like a great idea. The facts in the matter are that many banks never asked for or wanted the money and were forced into accepting it...see link below for more:

personalmoneystore.com...

Lots of the banks have already paid the money back with interest...see link below:

online.wsj.com...

Any TAX placed on Banks or other business is simply passed along to consumers who use their services, in other words We Pay the Tax as usual. It just does not make sense to force banks that did not need the money to take it and then only allow them to pay it back when the goverment wanted them too. Many of the Banks that recieved TARP monies used that money in lobbying campaigns...in other words funneling the money right back to the same poiliticians that voted to give them the money, also to give billions in payday bonus checks to bank executives. This is not how the money was meant to be used but since the Goverment gave out the money with no way to track how it was spent this was the results. In no way should We the Taxpayers be used to pay for bonus checks and lobbying funds for big banks and politicians. And the Tax on banks may sound good but remember We will pay for it thru user fee increases. Since I am only paid thru direct deposit with no other option then I am forced to pay the above mentioned fees as are millions of others.

Originally posted by DJMSN
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

Sounds like a great idea! But that is the problem...it sounds like a great idea. The facts in the matter are that many banks never asked for or wanted the money and were forced into accepting it...see link below for more:

personalmoneystore.com...

Lots of the banks have already paid the money back with interest...see link below:

online.wsj.com...

Any TAX placed on Banks or other business is simply passed along to consumers who use their services, in other words We Pay the Tax as usual. It just does not make sense to force banks that did not need the money to take it and then only allow them to pay it back when the goverment wanted them too. Many of the Banks that recieved TARP monies used that money in lobbying campaigns...in other words funneling the money right back to the same poiliticians that voted to give them the money, also to give billions in payday bonus checks to bank executives. This is not how the money was meant to be used but since the Goverment gave out the money with no way to track how it was spent this was the results. In no way should We the Taxpayers be used to pay for bonus checks and lobbying funds for big banks and politicians. And the Tax on banks may sound good but remember We will pay for it thru user fee increases. Since I am only paid thru direct deposit with no other option then I am forced to pay the above mentioned fees as are millions of others.

Hi Thanks for posting,

I never said all banks asked, and I never said all banks should take a bailout.
I know money has been paid back, on us, and I am against it being on us.

But I fail to see how a WSJ article is in any way relevant to what his thread is discussing. The WSJ is biased. The banks want you to think exactly like you do. That should be a clue.

I specifically stated that it would need to be levied, without it being paid by the taxpayers.

I don't want my money given to anyone, least of all banks.

Are you saying there is no way to enforce the payment not being passed on to the clients? I disagree. Regulation is what is needed, better yet habdcuffs.

Ziggy Strange

reply to post by ziggystrange


WSJ may be biased but they still report on whats going on...I am certainly not pro bank nor pro goverment giving money to the banks and didn't think you are either but you asked a question and I tried to anwser with links to back MOO up and those just happened to be the first googled. Its pretty hard to trust anything reported by anyone nowadays be it the MSM or on an internet form like ATS (see thread on Zombie invasion predicted for today) but using ones own common sense and judgement you can usually come up the anwsers. No I do not believe there is anyway to regulate a private industry from passing on cost to cutomers nor do I wish the goverment to be in the business of regulating fees. We have one of the best free markets in the world or at least used too and it should be up to an individual to charge what they want for a service and up to consumers to choose where to go for those services provided. When the goverment adds an additional tax it is simply another way to tax the people because no if ands or buts it will be passed onto the consumer. a tax gives all business an excuse to raise fees but raise them they will...some will charge more than others hence we still have a choice of where to go for services but we still pay more no matter what and in the end they still win by getting more money than before, the politicians get their tax and We the People still get screwed. Thanks for the thread though, I love this kind of discussion because its fun and really moot because in the end they will get it no matter what and life goes on.

reply to post by ziggystrange


The banks essential stimulate the economy through loans and such.

Bad loans where there is a new company that fails does nothing but waste resources. Same goes for foreclosures etc.

If Obama taxes the banks and uses that revenue to cut the deficit, I personally think he would be better off just removing that number from the deficit.

It does not make sense, but neither does taxing a business in which he has no control over and that can manipulate so much to cope with their needs.

I may be wrong on that part. It seems like the little man (government) trying to tell the big man (bank system) what to do.

Maybe publicly it will pass, but behind closed doors I get the feeling nothing will happen.

Who knows - this could be a REAL change, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

The banks essential stimulate the economy through loans and such.

Bad loans where there is a new company that fails does nothing but waste resources. Same goes for foreclosures etc.

If Obama taxes the banks and uses that revenue to cut the deficit, I personally think he would be better off just removing that number from the deficit.

It does not make sense, but neither does taxing a business in which he has no control over and that can manipulate so much to cope with their needs.

I may be wrong on that part. It seems like the little man (government) trying to tell the big man (bank system) what to do.

Maybe publicly it will pass, but behind closed doors I get the feeling nothing will happen.

Who knows - this could be a REAL change, but I doubt it.

Hi FB

Sorry I took so long to get back.

I agree with you that it's against all odds.

I'm analytical by nature. I'm pushing 60, I've seen it all unfold, did what I could.

I actually believe that Obama can deliver, if we let him, and we consider what he's up against.

So in essence we agree that the fat lady has not sung yet.

The only difference is, you're doubtful, which I understand completely, and I'm hopeful.

Peace

Ziggy

reply to post by ziggystrange


Actually it is now, here is why,

The big financial institutions that got the biggest amount of money like AGE, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Auto businesses will be exempt from paying the fee, but the ones targeted already pay most of the money, they have no reason or anything to hold them out from passing the cost to the consumer, so much for the tax, you and I will be paying for it.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

Actually it is now, here is why,

The big financial institutions that got the biggest amount of money like AGE, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Auto businesses will be exempt from paying the fee, but the ones targeted already pay most of the money, they have no reason or anything to hold them out from passing the cost to the consumer, so much for the tax, you and I will be paying for it.

Hi Margo6043,

Thanks for posting. I have not seen that, is that a fact?

From the article in the OP

Source NYT

Quote
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the Democrat who is chairman of the House banking committee, said the president was required to seek recovery of any losses under the law that created the $700 billion financial rescue fund, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in October 2008. The law did not spell out how to do so.

“I did know they were thinking about doing this and I encouraged them,” Mr. Frank said.

Mr. Frank and others in Congress said they did not know any details, and administration officials say no decisions have been made beyond the fact that a proposal will be in the budget. Mr. Obama has been meeting with Mr. Geithner and with Lawrence H. Summers, his senior White House economic adviser, to discuss options from the Treasury department. News of the decision to propose some kind of tax was first reported by Politico.
End quote

If you are right, and they are exempt, it's wrong.

Ziggy Strange

This was also covered in a prior thread. I offered the following:

Maybe you missed a couple of points:

1. The largest "bailout banks" have ALREADY paid back 100% of the TARP money, PLUS interest;

2. Many of the TARP recipients were FORCED to participate and did not want any government involvement in their business; and,

3. Any additional "cost of doing business" (i.e., "overhead") WILL be passed along to any consumers doing business with the institutions assessed the fee.

You may want to ask yourself and the gov't why the largest beneficiaries of government bailouts will NOT be assessed a "fee" and will be given MORE taxpayer money to keep them alive to waste more of our money?

AIG, FannieMae, FreddieMac, GM, GMAC, Chrysler, SEIU, IAW, AFL-CIO and AFSCME are ALL going to receive billions of tax dollars in funds, exemptions and credits under agreements with the Obama administration and Congress.

Those named above who received, and continue to receive, bailout money (AIG, Fannie, Freddie, GM, GMAC and Chrysler) will NOT be asked to pay any of these "fees" themselves.

Obama is trying to portray himself as a populist by picking on the easiest available targets, banks, while catering to the biggest sponges of the corporate welfare giveaways.

Why? Ask yourself: "Who OWNS the biggest sponges?"

Answer: The Obama administration and the unions he owes (and who own HIM) are majority owners of the biggest losers.

Of course, the "Fed" and Federal Reserve banks will not be subject to these fees either, despite having orchestrated the Treasury's continuing bailouts and secret support agreements.

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Hi Margo6043,

Thanks for posting. I have not seen that, is that a fact?

If you are right, and they are exempt, it's wrong.

Ziggy Strange

Ever tried to learn the truth about something before posting?

Here's a very nice summation of the "facts" from Lawrence Kudlow of CNBC:

Obama Rewards Losers, Punishes Winners

It’s not free-market capitalism.
By Larry Kudlow

President Obama’s misbegotten bank tax is precisely the wrong policy at precisely the wrong time. It will wind up backfiring across the board. Why? Because bank consumers and borrowers are the ones who will wind up paying this tax, creating an obstacle to economic recovery.

Obama is actually rewarding losers and punishing winners — exactly the reverse of free-market capitalism.

Who’s being rewarded? Obama’s bank-tax penalty is being used to finance the failed government takeovers of GM, GMAC, and Fannie and Freddie. And let’s not forget the $75 billion failure of the so-called foreclosure loan-modification program. To this day, no one knows where that money went. But the big banks are going to be forced to finance this through a tax that will damage lending, stockholders, and consumers.This is sheer political favoritism. Crony capitalism at its worst, with a sub-theme of bailing out Obama’s Big Labor political allies. It’s just like his bailout of the unions by exempting them from the so-called Cadillac insurance tax until 2018, all while the rest of us may have to suffer under that tax.

Speaking of political unfairness and favoritism, mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie will not pay a nickel of this tax. These government-sponsored enterprises were at the very center of the financial maelstrom, financing the government’s quotas and targets for unaffordable mortgages.

Think about this for a second. President Obama is out there bashing away at excessive bonuses. And yet Fannie and Freddie’s CEOs stand to make $6 million in the next year or two. Huh? These are big-government-owned bureaucrats. They ought to be paid like GS-18s.

You really should try to keep up with what is happening around you if you want to be taken seriously.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


1. This thread predates your posted source by 4 days.
2. Your source is published in a rag.
3. The fact that what was already paid back, can't be taxed does not mean there will be no attempt to ameliorate.
4. This particular initiative is directed toward financial institutions.

Try to abide by T & C.

You headline your indictment by quoting CNBC

But in fact Larry Kudlow posted the article on the NRO which is where your link goes. Hardly a bastion of unbiased journalism.

Why bend the truth?
You invalidate your argument by obfuscating the obvious.

When there is a leak, you stop it, then you mop up the spill later.

By your logic, once there is a leak, you don't plug it, you just freak out and let the leak continue, and then moan about the spill, the leak, and blame anyone but yourself.

You go find out the truth, you don't have it.

Ziggy Strange

Originally posted by jdub297
This was also covered in a prior thread. I offered the following:

Maybe you missed a couple of points:

jw

No you missed the entire point.
If you are going to post.

Read the thread.

Your answer seems like you saw a response, and shot from the hip.

This thread was a good discussion about the proposed legislation.
Specific Banks and other BIs that paid back were not the focus.

To speculate as to what may or may not be done once the dust settles is a bit of a stretch.

The angst really doesn't help.

Ziggy Strange