and the banks will charge it to you the consumers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/a2cergfz6jsi
So how much will the average bank customer be expected to pay in new fees, ducks?
Window dressing for the rabble.
The financial sector owns the government and will never be hurt or penalized or restricted in their raping of the country.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-13-2010 at 11:21 AM.
change banks then you whiner.
Is ducks 12 years old or just re ed? Or both?
Some of you are such barry nut huggers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822140...oward_fineman/
He hasn't violated this YET so what's the point of screaming like a lunatic?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 $250,000 and he decided to extend most of George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Violating those pledges would make the Democrats’ political situation even more perilous among swing-state and swing-district voters. On its face, the surtax would not violate the pledge.
YET, but you do know it's coming right? The point is Barry has lied on just about everything he promised, and nuthuggers defend this by saying "oh well he's a politician and that's what they do". Remember Barry ran on "Change" not on "I'm a politician so I'm going to do what my predecesors have done".
No I don't know. Do you? I know you're an obama hater so anything you can complain about you will. Unlike you I will wait until he lies before I state that he lied. So are you stating now that you don't support any politician who has not lived up to all of his/her campaign pledges? Yes or no?
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 01-13-2010 at 01:47 PM.
Barry "helps" the banks and gets an 8% return on the money he loaned them...If the companies paid back the money with interest-why does Barry want to get more out of them?
"why does Barry want to get more out of them"
FDIC is pretty much zeroed. Maybe he wants to have the banks build up an multi-$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)
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.
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.
I don't know. I don't think it was all Sarah's fault. McCain sucked too.
It may lose out to the recouping afterward idea.
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.
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 ins utions will be more willing to risk it all in the future if they know they won't be allowed to fail ever.
Yeah, if you're stupid enough to get hit by all those ing fees.
As I understand it, that might soon be our official policy.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...highlight=TBTF
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a48c8UpUMxKQ (H/T Marcus)Instead, it supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve 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.
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.
This. How stupid can this ty 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.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.
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-14-2010 at 12:26 PM.
...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
