It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


President Obama Proposes Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:12 AM

I did a search and did not find this as of yet, I hope this is not a dupe.

A financial crisis responsibility fee, if you think about it seems good.
$117 billion over 12 years?
I can't help but be sarcastic but wouldn't that 30BN to israel help here?

I mean seriously.

I don't want to............... I don't know


posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

117 Billion... Not enough to get us out of this rut, but it is definatly a start.

I do have to say I really like what he is doing here. I agree that our banking institutions need to be held accountable for their actions more often. And yes, they should be required to pay back the tax dollars, that we lent, used to bail them out and salvage their companies from the brink of disaster.

He does talk about prevent abuse within the banking system... So how about we start with an audit on the FED Mr. President? I sure as hell would be interested to see where OUR tax dollars are specifically going. If you have a secret I would feel much better with our leaders being up front about it, instead of trying to beat around the bush and raise even more suspicions.

Ultimately like he said it all comes down to one thing....
"Taking responsibility for the actions of the banks"

Great find OP

[edit on 15-1-2010 by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx]

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:22 AM
I cant hear sound on these videos while im at work, but I hope this is not what i think it is..... Is it another tax to the people for more Bailout money? They take 900 Billion of the taxpayers money and then tax them more to help out after all of these Corporate POSs fill their piggy banks? WTF!


posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

What does this have to do with Isreal? Obama will be taxing the Bankers who borrowed money from the Government, Even the ones who were forced to take money...

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:42 AM
When he adds Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GMAC and Chrysler to this, I might support it.

If anybody wants to know where this is going try this quote from the Open Left website.

The proposed tax will be included in the fiscal year 2011 budget This decision is still significant because:

The White house could have waited. . As part of the TARP deal in 2008, the White House was required by law to impose this--or a similar--tax by 2013. In making this move, the White House has decided to move up the timetable, showing that it isn't completely tone deaf on the political implications of the bailout.

It will recover the losses. Although it is not entirely clear how much money the tax will recoup, or how much the federal government will lose as a part of TARP, the White House says the tax will run as long as is necessary to recoup all of the losses.

It will pick a fight. Republicans hate the idea. Banks hate the idea. On a media call with the White House this afternoon, it was clear that some financial reporters, such as Joseph DiStefano of the Philadelphia Inquirer, hated the idea (DiStefano called it "crazy" as a part of his question on the call). This is all very good.
It isn't just necessary for the White House to make this move in 2010, or to recover all of the losses. It is necessary to do so in a way that will anger bankers, Republicans and the financial media, thus publicly picking a political fight that will put Republicans on the side of large financial institutions.

As the governing party during a difficult economic time, Democrats must credibly portray someone else as the cause of the economic crisis or suffer massive electoral losses. Large financial institutions--"the banks"--are the most obvious culprit. Picking public fights with these institutions--fights where Republicans will side with banks--is the way to do this. A TARP related tax like this is a first step in pulling this all off. Even the White House's language, "we want our money back," is just right. Good job, White House.

Boldface in quotation is by my choice

White House does good on new bank tax; bad on Medicare commission

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:32 PM
You can't tax a business. They simply pass the cost along to the consumer. Giving them ten years or however long they need to pay is a joke. No lending institution would give any of us that kind of deal, and with no interest!
They should be treated as we are when we default. Start seizing assets. Sell them off to pay the debt. Why should they be given the option to pay what they can when they can for however long they need? Are you kidding me? That's the deal that all the foreclosed home owners should have been given.
I am disgusted!

top topics

log in