Obama to banks: `We want our money back'

Well I can see the argument about the banks just passing on the cost to there customers, big companys have a tendency to do that! They can only get away with it because they have little competition or are in league with the competition. I'm not sure what the best solution to that is, other than enforce the way big businesse's operate.
As to what Obama is proposing, I will quote from the source to illustrate my take on it.
First:

"We are already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street, suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair, that by some twisted logic, it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses," Obama said.

I'm sure we can all agree with the above rhetoric, but theres more:

The president is proposing a tax of 0.15 percent on the liabilities of large financial institutions. It would apply only to those companies with assets of more than $50 billion — a group estimated at about 50. They would have to pay up even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most that did have repaid the infusions.

Now the last sentence sounds totally out of order, whats that about companys having to pay even though they did not accept taxpayers money!!
And even though most have repaid the infusions! Sounds totally wrong!

But wait given the context that the 0.15% tax is only on the 'liabilities' of those institutions, those same liabilities that triggered the whole finacial crisis in the first place, then coudn't this proposal encourage them to hold less liabilities and thus pay less tax? If the banks have less liabilties, they have less chance of going bust and won't cause as much finacial havoc in the future surely?

reply to post by satellite1


The first thing they are doing is restricting the fees banks can charge people. About time is what I say.

The next thing they need to do is restrict the interest rates banks are allowed to charge people. It is time to get rid of the loan shark rates people are being charged these days.

The next is to raise taxes on the super rich at least back up to the levels they were at in 1995. GW and the neocons cut taxes claiming it would spur economic growth, and we got the depression of 2009 out of the deal. Time to raise taxes on the super rich like they did in 93, and return the prosperity of the nineties.

We The People to obama:

We Want Our Money Back ...

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


Sounds to me like Obama is trying to get our money back.

Reigning in the banks is the most important thing Obama can do.

reply to post by butcherguy


Trust me, I am just pulling your leg is not easy to differentiate dumb from dumber now a days when it comes to our governments deed.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by AmericanDaughter

 

Sounds to me like Obama is trying to get our money back.

Reigning in the banks is the most important thing Obama can do.

How about reigning in Fannie Mae or General Motors? I'll tell you why, because there's no money to be made off the American people that way. The banks will be coming for all of us very soon and if you have a loan or credit card you'll notice a huge difference soon enough.

Originally posted by butcherguy
He didn't have any problem shoveling the money out to them to begin with, in record-setting amounts, I might add. Now he is going to get the money back, with a tax on all the banks. Spanking the bottoms of the banks that didn't get any handouts. Where will this money come from? The American people, of course. But then, who cares anymore.

schizophrenia comes to mind.

Maybe they are trying to confuse us.

reply to post by Anjin


No only them but the biggest recipient of TARP money AIG, you don't get to hear about them often, they are still getting TARP money but is not publicized much.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by endisnighe

 

The joke is on us. Those banks who get taxed end up passing the extra expense onto their customers.

But Obama should have put bonus cap limitations into the loan agreements when he gave those banks their loans. THAT would have been smart - if he were truly on the side of the American working class taxpayer.

Easy solution. Move your money to a local bank/credit union. That would stick it to the bankers quite handily, now wouldn't it?

reply to post by Anjin


Haven't you already realized that the banks come at us every opportunity they get. Deregulation turned our banks into giant leaches.

Our banking and financial institutions have been doing everything in there power since deregulation to steal everything they can get their hands on.

The current bank plan of cradle to grave debt seeks to make everyone in debt to them, while they hold ownership to all of our assets.

Why anyone wouldn't celebrate the efforts of the Obama admin to reign in this bunch of crooks is beyond me.

Originally posted by skunknuts

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by endisnighe

 

The joke is on us. Those banks who get taxed end up passing the extra expense onto their customers.

But Obama should have put bonus cap limitations into the loan agreements when he gave those banks their loans. THAT would have been smart - if he were truly on the side of the American working class taxpayer.

TARP was Bush's program. Obama's administration has put some caps on bonuses, but when he tried to do more, there was an uproar about him hating American capitalism by the sheeple who worship Rush et.al..

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 1/14/2010 by skunknuts]

Although TARP was Bush's program, the second banker bailout wasn't. It occurred AFTER Obama took office. Remember this?

online.wsj.com...

and this?

www.msnbc.msn.com...

and this?

online.wsj.com...

Let's not even try to put the blame on Bush for round 2, no matter how much you would like to, sir. He had nothing to do with it.

And as for your comment on the Republicans raising hell on the bonus cap limitations - uh, which party has a Congressional majority in both houses right now and back when those caps were proposed? Further caps didn't make it because Obama's financial backers and people he owes a great deal of "gratitutde" for his winning the election were saying "enough".

I say again, Obama should have put bonus caps on those loans IN WRITING before those institutions took a second helping of cash. But he didn't. And you know why? Because Obama doesn't know # about economics!


[edit on 14-1-2010 by sos37]

reply to post by poet1b


Sounds like it But
I trust barry and his motives as far as I can throw his wife
and that ain't far.

reply to post by sos37


Look at your dates, this was all put into place before Obama took office. The Obama admin was simply accounting for money the GW admin had already committed to spend.

It was the Obama admin who put the controls on bonuses, which the GW admin refused to do, and it was the Obama admin which called for the fed to give out the details, which they are still refusing to do, as to where the money went.

reply to post by poet1b


Oh no, another rewrite of history.

Please, at least attempt to learn a LITTLE history.

Dodd, does that pile of dog poo ring a bell? How about him lying for days and then coming clean that the Admin forced him to put wording in the bill that would ALLOW all bonuses to go through.

Just rewrite history when it does not fit your view, ehhh?

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


Being that the bankers have already stolen from the U.S. public, it has been clearly established that they can not be trusted at all.

If we go with the bankers, we know for sure they will take us for every penny they can grab. With the Obama admin, we at least have a chance at a decent deal.

Obama's move to reign in the banks is the right move, and it is needed right now.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by sos37

 

Look at your dates, this was all put into place before Obama took office. The Obama admin was simply accounting for money the GW admin had already committed to spend.

It was the Obama admin who put the controls on bonuses, which the GW admin refused to do, and it was the Obama admin which called for the fed to give out the details, which they are still refusing to do, as to where the money went.

No.

updated 3:48 p.m. CT, Thurs., Feb. 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama anticipates another $750 billion bank bailout this year, a step that would more than double the direct infusion of taxpayer money into the reeling financial sector.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

The original TARP Bailout was only $700 billion. Your contention that "it was the rest of Bush's committed TARP money" doesn't work.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by sos37]

"Get our money back"?

Screw that.

I want the money back, plus interest.

And the same they charge us.

Basically, the banks got a payday loan, so they should pay payday loan interest: 45%.

Anything less is an insult.

Alternatively they can keep the money, we can give them a fair trial on fraud charges, then hang 'em.

This very public move by Obama, along with a speedy response to the tragedy in Haiti are the wisest political moves Obama has made yet... His goals with this tax or "fees" to banks are meant to gain popularity among working class Americans... But in reality it is meant to demonize the capitalist system... Making it easier in the future to bring down the very systems that provide wealth and opportunity in this country and push people into more dependence on government.

When he has successfully implemented this, and rebuilt Haiti he should consider making Haiti a new State of ours, and move all of the banks along with General Motors (GM) AKA Government Motors to Haiti to exploit the vast abundance of cheap labor.

Hell, he could end up getting another Nobel Prize out of this!



[edit on 14-1-2010 by Walkswithfish]

reply to post by poet1b


I hope you're right
still too little too late
and if we had some of our big bucks he's paid off to acorn and other thugs, including the banks,
I'm sure we wouldn't be in the bind we're in
more controll is what I see but I sincerely hope you are right.

news.sky.com... 1215522819

There have been a lot of American banks that have paid back with interest.

dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com...

www.nytimes.com...

If the problem is that they are not loaning?

Make up their mind, the government forced loans got us into this mess,