Obama Plans to Raise $120 Billion From Banking Fees [Archive]

George Gervin's Afro

01-13-2010, 11:48 AM

Some of you are such barry nut huggers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822140/ns/politics-howard_fineman/

Obama is in a tighter bind because of previous pledges and decisions. In 2008 and early in his presidency, he promised not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 and he decided to extend most of George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Violating those pledges would make the Democrats’ political situation even more perilous among swing-state and swing-district voters. On its face, the surtax would not violate the pledge.

He hasn't violated this YET so what's the point of screaming like a lunatic?

Barry O'Bama

01-13-2010, 12:58 PM

He hasn't violated this YET so what's the point of screaming like a lunatic?

YET, but you do know it's coming right? The point is Barry has lied on just about everything he promised, and nuthuggers defend this by saying "oh well he's a politician and that's what they do". Remember Barry ran on "Change" not on "I'm a politician so I'm going to do what my predecesors have done".

jack sommerset

01-13-2010, 01:21 PM

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj65/mikeysmoma2003/funny.jpg

:lol

George Gervin's Afro

01-13-2010, 01:41 PM

YET, but you do know it's coming right? The point is Barry has lied on just about everything he promised, and nuthuggers defend this by saying "oh well he's a politician and that's what they do". Remember Barry ran on "Change" not on "I'm a politician so I'm going to do what my predecesors have done".

No I don't know. Do you? I know you're an obama hater so anything you can complain about you will. Unlike you I will wait until he lies before I state that he lied. So are you stating now that you don't support any politician who has not lived up to all of his/her campaign pledges? Yes or no?

spursncowboys

01-13-2010, 01:44 PM

Barry "helps" the banks and gets an 8% return on the money he loaned them...If the companies paid back the money with interest-why does Barry want to get more out of them?

boutons_deux

01-13-2010, 02:49 PM

"why does Barry want to get more out of them"

FDIC is pretty much zeroed. Maybe he wants to have the banks build up an multi-$T account that would be used to bail the fnckers out next time (and there will be a next time) without running up a deficit.

It sounds like you want to protect banksters. (wouldn't be surprising)

Winehole23

01-13-2010, 03:01 PM

If the companies paid back the money with interest-why does Barry want to get more out of them?140 or so failed banks in the last year. TARP losses. FDIC out of money. There are a number of reasons.

Among them being that if the government now has to insure against TBTFs defaulting, then shouldn't TBTFs have to pay money into any so dedicated rainy day fund in advance?

EVAY

01-13-2010, 03:09 PM

140 or so failed banks in the last year. TARP losses. FDIC out of money. There are a number of reasons.

Among them being that if the government now has to insure against TBTFs defaulting, then shouldn't TBTFs have to pay money into any so dedicated rainy day fund in advance?

I htink this is a damn fine idea.

EVAY

01-13-2010, 03:15 PM

Barry "helps" the banks and gets an 8% return on the money he loaned them...If the companies paid back the money with interest-why does Barry want to get more out of them?

Now wait, are you sure it was just "Barry" helping the banks. Didn't TARP occur at the request of the Bush administration? And wasn't it supported by BOTH presidential candidates. In fact, wasn't part of McCain's problem that he not only supported it himself, he very publicly (and stupidly) talked about maybe 'suspending his campaign' in order to go to Washington and lead his party to 'get behind' it...and then failed to 'get his party behind it', reflecting not so brilliantly on his leadership skills?

The bad judgement that McCain used in how he handled that whole TARP mess made lots of Republican base voters distrust him because they would rather not have TARP, and made lots of independent voters distrust his ability to handle crises and/or lead in a time of crisis. Oh, and yes, the independents might have forgiven him his TARP mess until Sarah opened her mouth.

Winehole23

01-13-2010, 04:21 PM

Oh, and yes, the independents might have forgiven him his TARP mess until Sarah opened her mouth.I don't know. I don't think it was all Sarah's fault. McCain sucked too.

Winehole23

01-13-2010, 08:19 PM

I think this is a damn fine idea.It may lose out to the recouping afterward idea.

Marcus Bryant

01-13-2010, 10:00 PM

If you expect the taxpayers to bail your ass out, then don't be surprised when Uncle Sam starts charging you fees every time you move, much like you do when customers move their money.

Conservatives need to figure out fast that 'big business' is not their friend and is as much to blame for an activist state as the pinko commie Mao worshipping liberals that Rush and Hannity warn you about.

The only businessmen I respect are those who no member of Congress gives a rat's ass about. Those who operate under real capitalism, not those who pay politicians to talk about capitalism while providing welfare to million- and billionaires.

SnakeBoy

01-14-2010, 02:08 AM

Among them being that if the government now has to insure against TBTFs defaulting, then shouldn't TBTFs have to pay money into any so dedicated rainy day fund in advance?

Only if our official policy going forward is that the government will always rescue the TBTF's when they try to commit suicide. If it is going to be the policy going forward then doesn't that only guarantee that those institutions will be more willing to risk it all in the future if they know they won't be allowed to fail ever.

DMX7

01-14-2010, 03:33 AM

and the banks will charge it to you the consumers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20100112/pl_bloomberg/a2cergfz6jsi

Yeah, if you're stupid enough to get hit by all those fucking fees.

Winehole23

01-14-2010, 10:10 AM

Only if our official policy going forward is that the government will always rescue the TBTF's when they try to commit suicide.As I understand it, that might soon be our official policy.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137773&highlight=TBTF

Instead, it supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve (http://www.federalreserve.gov/) banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ (H/T Marcus)

If it is going to be the policy going forward then doesn't that only guarantee that those institutions will be more willing to risk it all in the future if they know they won't be allowed to fail ever.It would seem so. It's crazy foolishness to protect TBTFs from the consequences of their own failure, but I guess that's what passes for reasonable prudence these days.

balli

01-14-2010, 10:22 AM

Conservatives need to figure out fast that 'big business' is not their friend and is as much to blame for an activist state as the pinko commie Mao worshipping liberals that Rush and Hannity warn you about.
This. How stupid can this shitty little populist movement get? Out of one side of their mouths they rail against corporate welfare and the presumed 'elite' banker/corporate class. Out of the other they howl over said corporations being held accountable for their debts. The right can't have it both ways. Lest people figure out it's just a movement based on malcontentedness and absolutely nothing more.

Winehole23

01-14-2010, 11:38 AM

How stupid can this shitty little populist movement get? Short of brain death, there's no rational limit to how much stupider people can get.

The idea that there are political solutions to be sought outside the GOP/Dem duopoly isn't stupid at all, but politics isn't an intellectual salon.

NOT@balli, necessarily:

A movement possessing any considerable political mass is likely to be composed of very heterogeneous elements, and pouting because reality or the political parties do not flatter our own intelligence so much as gross popular tastes would seem not only wussified, but perversely unrealistic.

OTOH, saying NO to the perverted stability of the satanic totality upholds the dignity of an insulted world that barely even exists, except as the complaint that the actual world has insulted it again.

The NO is a utopian dynamo. It is so powerful that -- just for example -- big government, borrow and spend conservatives can still run for Congress as "anti-Washington" candidates.

Out of one side of their mouths they rail against corporate welfare and the presumed 'elite' banker/corporate class. Out of the other they howl over said corporations being held accountable for their debts.SnC? I noticed that too.

TheMime

01-14-2010, 07:25 PM

...

spursncowboys

01-14-2010, 07:51 PM

Short of brain death, there's no rational limit to how much stupider people can get.

The idea that there are political solutions to be sought outside the GOP/Dem duopoly isn't stupid at all, but politics isn't an intellectual salon.

NOT@balli, necessarily:

A movement possessing any considerable political mass is likely to be composed of very heterogeneous elements, and pouting because reality or the political parties do not flatter our own intelligence so much as gross popular tastes would seem not only wussified, but perversely unrealistic.

OTOH, saying NO to the perverted stability of the satanic totality upholds the dignity of an insulted world that barely even exists, except as the complaint that the actual world has insulted it again.

The NO is a utopian dynamo. It is so powerful that -- just for example -- big government, borrow and spend conservatives can still run for Congress as "anti-Washington" candidates.

SnC? I noticed that too.
I haven't read a post from any conservative on this forum who wanted the TBTF co. to be bailed out. These same ones also don't believe that these companies should be penalized for being profitable. I heard on the radio today BHO will spend more in three months than he did the entire last year.

Winehole23

01-14-2010, 11:54 PM

. These same ones also don't believe that these companies should be penalized for being profitable.Some of these same companies were facing insolvency and default in fall 2008, absent the bailout. Why should we let the bailees off the hook, when we're already massively out of pocket on their account? That they are profitable now may partly reflect the epochal socialization of private financial risk, wouldn't you say?

Until there's transparency re: the provenance and magnitude of the financial dreck posted for the $2T of cash loans at the various Fed pawnshops, we won't really know for sure, will we?

Nbadan

01-15-2010, 01:21 AM

Banks are gonna charge the fees anyway...time to socialize the profits...

Marcus Bryant

01-15-2010, 10:47 AM

Some of these same companies were facing insolvency and default in fall 2008, absent the bailout. Why should we let the bailees off the hook, when we're already massively out of pocket on their account? That they are profitable now may partly reflect the epochal socialization of private financial risk, wouldn't you say?

Until there's transparency re: the magnitude of the financial dreck posted for the $2T of cash loans at the various Fed pawnshops, we won't really know for sure, will we?

Right. People will find the end of civilization in the notion that someone poor (or perhaps not truly poor, but lazy) gets a handout from the taxes of everyone else, but when the taxes paid by modest families and the value of the currency which they have saved is looted to cover bad bets by the wealthy, well, that's just good ol' fashioned rugged American individualism.

And any attempt to recoup that is Bolshevism.

Marcus Bryant

01-15-2010, 10:57 AM

Or, we're supposed to ignore the first act of socialism instead of the following act.

As a nation of alleged individualists, one would think quite a few of us would have a problem providing welfare to billionaires.

The media and the schools serve their masters well.

Winehole23

01-16-2010, 06:08 AM

As a nation of alleged individualists, one would think quite a few of us would have a problem providing welfare to billionaires.There are quite a few, I think.

There are also quite a few who single out those singling out welfare for the mega- well-to-do, as declasse' resenters and haters of business. It's an effective tactic, appealing broadly to ignorance and inchoate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/INCHOATE) prejudice, while soliciting identification with the upper class. The success of the successful becomes a fetish for strivers, and gets worshipped for its own sake.

EVAY

01-16-2010, 11:23 AM

Republicans on the Board appear to want to criticize Obama for supporting the bailout that was proposed bu a Republican Administration and supported by the Republican candidate running against Obama, and then also criticize the attempt to recoup some of the money.

The only thing the criticism accomplishes is to shine light on the non-reasoning positions taken that, if the party to which they don't belong says it, then it must be wrong. It is very like the position that many of them take regarding that disgusting Rush Limbaugh, i.e., no matter how revolting and awful and insulting his comments, they will defend him...most recently it is regarding Haiti. It is ALWAYS about some hatred or other that he is spewing.

spursncowboys

01-16-2010, 11:24 AM

Some of these same companies were facing insolvency and default in fall 2008, absent the bailout. Why should we let the bailees off the hook, when we're already massively out of pocket on their account? That they are profitable now may partly reflect the epochal socialization of private financial risk, wouldn't you say?

Until there's transparency re: the provenance and magnitude of the financial dreck posted for the $2T of cash loans at the various Fed pawnshops, we won't really know for sure, will we?

We shouldn't have let them off the hook. However if we have the Fed for it's intended job-be last effort loans to banks to create liquidity-then we should do that. I would be ok with no Fed, or less powerful. But that is what it was there for.
We should have a universal definition of what a tax is, and what should be it's effects.

Winehole23

01-17-2010, 06:11 AM

We shouldn't have let them off the hook. First you were against it.

However if we have the Fed for it's intended job-be last effort loans to banks to create liquidity-then we should do that.Then, for it.

I would be ok with no Fed, or less powerful. But that is what it was there for. This appears to be resignation. For it, again.

Nice to know where you come out on this. :tu

Winehole23

01-17-2010, 06:19 AM

So basically, SnC is a pro-business toady who who takes it for granted that the government should bail out megabanks, broker-dealers and AIG, and that they should never have to pay us all back for the favor.

If we insist on being repaid, we resent the rich and are inciting class war.