Government Takeover? It sure looks that way.

[Murf76]

How do you think the FDIC is funded (which insures small community banks)?? By FEES assessed those banks. Why shouldn't investment institutions (which are not really "banks" at all) be insured against their own potential losses?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to have that particular discussion then?

 

[Sinatra]

Now how does this equal a "government takeover"?

Because all I see is Obama wanting his bailout money back.

_____

Really? That all you see?

Obama is asking for an additional tax from firms who NEVER TOOK bailout money as well as firms who have already paid it ALL BACK WITH INTEREST - to say nothing of the firms who did not want bailout money but were forced to take it.

I suggest you look beyond the teleprompted speech and to the actual substance of what is being proposed. Nearly 2/3rds of the bailout money has already been paid back, with billions in additional interest collected.

Obama is initiating a tax as a means of paying for an agenda, as well as further attempted controls of the banking industry.

A very very dangerous precedent being set here if it is allowed to become law...

Since all these institutions are now making money again, what are they doing with it? The writing is already on the wall that they're up to the same sneaky tactics that brought them to the brink in the first place, and if so, it won't be long before they'll go begging again. These fees are insurance that taxpayer's will never be asked to pony up the money for their survival again. How anyone in their right mind could think that's a BAD thing is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

You have NO CLUE what you are talking about!!

Bonuses did not cause the economy to go "to the brink". You can take all those wall street bonuses and roll them together and they are but a drop in the bucket of the Obama debt.

And if you are complaining of this tax being so that taxpayers won't have "to pony up the money ever again" - then where is the tax on the auto companies????? We gave them billions and billions that we will NEVER SEE AGAIN. Unlike the banks, which have paid back a majority of TARP already, WITH BILLIONS of additional interest.

And why are firms who never took TARP being punished? What of those who were forced to take it??? What of those who have already given it all back???

You have NO IDEA what your are saying. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This tax is a tax on ALL Americans - primarily the middle class. It will hurt small business because with every increased burden on the credit market, fewer business will have access to said credit. More job loss, more foreclosures, more economic distress.

And will it stop at the banks? What of Big Oil? What of Pharma? What of Insurance?

Oh wait...

That's right, the government is making moves to punish those pillars of the economy as well.

You are on the wrong side of history here - the turning of the tide is underway NOW.

 

[Vel]

Now how does this equal a "government takeover"?

Because all I see is Obama wanting his bailout money back.

_____

Really? That all you see?

Obama is asking for an additional tax from firms who NEVER TOOK bailout money as well as firms who have already paid it ALL BACK WITH INTEREST - to say nothing of the firms who did not want bailout money but were forced to take it.

I suggest you look beyond the teleprompted speech and to the actual substance of what is being proposed. Nearly 2/3rds of the bailout money has already been paid back, with billions in additional interest collected.

Obama is initiating a tax as a means of paying for an agenda, as well as further attempted controls of the banking industry.

A very very dangerous precedent being set here if it is allowed to become law...

posted by MaggieMae
"Since all these institutions are now making money again, what are they doing with it? The writing is already on the wall that they're up to the same sneaky tactics that brought them to the brink in the first place, and if so, it won't be long before they'll go begging again. These fees are insurance that taxpayer's will never be asked to pony up the money for their survival again. How anyone in their right mind could think that's a BAD thing is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
*******************************************************************
How anyone in their right mind can't see the problem with the government "punishing" the innocent along with the "guilty", is beyond me. This plot is as un-American as anything I've seen.

 

[Vel]

If the government decides what compensation can be paid, how much profit can be made, and can reach their collective hands in and take the money from private companies, then those companies have essentially been taken over.

If a company is on the verge of collapsing, and bringing the entire banking system down with it, and the government bails them out, I see no reason for them not to stop banks from using that bailout money to give huge bonuses.

The government has made NO restrictions on "how much profit can be made".

The government is not "reaching their collective hands in". They are taking the money back.

Let's start from somewhere else.

Do you believe that the banks should have been bailed out? Yes or No?

Oooooh.... let me "tag in", Vel6377...

No. I, personally don't believe they should have. But let's assume that it really was necessary to bail out the ones who were in imminent danger of collapse. By what right did the central government FORCE well-capitalized banks to take this money?

And don't say it didn't happen. Here's John Alliison of BB&T on Stossel last week describing how it happened him:
[youtube]gCEdy_yHkQE[/youtube]

So... let's say a guy named Bennie comes into your place of business. And Bennie says to you... "Lookie here fella. I'm gonna lend you some money, see. And you're gonna take it, 'cause if you don't... bad things might happen. Then, I'm gonna tell you what's what around this here business and I'm gonna be the one makin' all the rules from now on. And you're gonna pay me that money back when I say you can and give me whatever interest on it I happen to decide. Then, when all that's done... I might come around every now and then for a bit more dough. 'Cause, afterall, you wouldn't be here exceptin' for me."

Do you think Bennie might be running a little protection racket? Think Bennie might find himself all dolled up in an orange jumpsuit, trying to avoid 'date night'?
What if Bennie just skipped all the "lending out some money" bullshit and decided to just shake you down now and then because he figures you've got plenty of dough and there are some guys down at the pool hall who are low on funds?

Bottom line, this is raw EXTORTION. It's class warfare. It's cronyism. Note that the GM and Chrysler were pretty much handed to the unions in a "surgical bankruptsy", and they're exempt. Note that unions are also proposed to be exempt from the "Cadillac Healthcare Tax", probably unconstitutionally. And you people are going to sit there and try to tell us that this isn't socialist redistribution of hard cold cash, not a "government takeover"??? Seriously?

If I take your car and you have no means of getting it back... who's car is it? Is it mine or is it yours? Nominally, it might be yours, but does it make a difference really?
Because if I have the car and you can't get it back... you're walking and I'm riding.

Complete control of a thing is de facto ownership of it.

Progressives want to offer us a "third way", a nice little marriage between private business and government. But there's another word for that state of affairs...fascism. Fascism, the facade of Socialism (once quite popular), which leaves businesses nominally owned by the private sector and operationally controlled by the government. A "government takeover" in all but name.

You say the government hasn't placed any restrictions on profits... but wasn't it "massive profits and obscene bonuses" that prompted Obama to "get our money back". And that, from people who DON'T HAVE "our money", having paid it back with interest or not having borrowed it at all.

Obama's rationale is that the financial industry caused this problem, and that they, as a whole, have benefited from TARP. But where were the trials establishing some sort of guilt? Did I sleep through them? Or... is it no longer necessary in this country to PROVE that someone is guilty before they're penalized?

Great post Murf76. Tag in anytime..

 

[Sinatra]

Now how does this equal a "government takeover"?

Because all I see is Obama wanting his bailout money back.

_____

Really? That all you see?

Obama is asking for an additional tax from firms who NEVER TOOK bailout money as well as firms who have already paid it ALL BACK WITH INTEREST - to say nothing of the firms who did not want bailout money but were forced to take it.

I suggest you look beyond the teleprompted speech and to the actual substance of what is being proposed. Nearly 2/3rds of the bailout money has already been paid back, with billions in additional interest collected.

Obama is initiating a tax as a means of paying for an agenda, as well as further attempted controls of the banking industry.

A very very dangerous precedent being set here if it is allowed to become law...

Since all these institutions are now making money again, what are they doing with it? The writing is already on the wall that they're up to the same sneaky tactics that brought them to the brink in the first place, and if so, it won't be long before they'll go begging again. These fees are insurance that taxpayer's will never be asked to pony up the money for their survival again. How anyone in their right mind could think that's a BAD thing is beyond me.

How anyone in their right mind can't see the problem with the government "punishing" the innocent along with the "guilty", is beyond me. This plot is as un-American as anything I've seen.[/QUOTE]

You got that right - and it is damn scary the numbers of people who are agreeing with this madness.

 

[MaggieMae]

If the government decides what compensation can be paid, how much profit can be made, and can reach their collective hands in and take the money from private companies, then those companies have essentially been taken over.

If a company is on the verge of collapsing, and bringing the entire banking system down with it, and the government bails them out, I see no reason for them not to stop banks from using that bailout money to give huge bonuses.

The government has made NO restrictions on "how much profit can be made".

The government is not "reaching their collective hands in". They are taking the money back.

Let's start from somewhere else.

Do you believe that the banks should have been bailed out? Yes or No?

Oooooh.... let me "tag in", Vel6377...

No. I, personally don't believe they should have. But let's assume that it really was necessary to bail out the ones who were in imminent danger of collapse. By what right did the central government FORCE well-capitalized banks to take this money?

And don't say it didn't happen. Here's John Alliison of BB&T on Stossel last week describing how it happened him:
[youtube]gCEdy_yHkQE[/youtube]

So... let's say a guy named Bennie comes into your place of business. And Bennie says to you... "Lookie here fella. I'm gonna lend you some money, see. And you're gonna take it, 'cause if you don't... bad things might happen. Then, I'm gonna tell you what's what around this here business and I'm gonna be the one makin' all the rules from now on. And you're gonna pay me that money back when I say you can and give me whatever interest on it I happen to decide. Then, when all that's done... I might come around every now and then for a bit more dough. 'Cause, afterall, you wouldn't be here exceptin' for me."

Do you think Bennie might be running a little protection racket? Think Bennie might find himself all dolled up in an orange jumpsuit, trying to avoid 'date night'?
What if Bennie just skipped all the "lending out some money" bullshit and decided to just shake you down now and then because he figures you've got plenty of dough and there are some guys down at the pool hall who are low on funds?

Bottom line, this is raw EXTORTION. It's class warfare. It's cronyism. Note that the GM and Chrysler were pretty much handed to the unions in a "surgical bankruptsy", and they're exempt. Note that unions are also proposed to be exempt from the "Cadillac Healthcare Tax", probably unconstitutionally. And you people are going to sit there and try to tell us that this isn't socialist redistribution of hard cold cash, not a "government takeover"??? Seriously?

If I take your car and you have no means of getting it back... who's car is it? Is it mine or is it yours? Nominally, it might be yours, but does it make a difference really?
Because if I have the car and you can't get it back... you're walking and I'm riding.

Complete control of a thing is de facto ownership of it.

Progressives want to offer us a "third way", a nice little marriage between private business and government. But there's another word for that state of affairs...fascism. Fascism, the facade of Socialism (once quite popular), which leaves businesses nominally owned by the private sector and operationally controlled by the government. A "government takeover" in all but name.

You say the government hasn't placed any restrictions on profits... but wasn't it "massive profits and obscene bonuses" that prompted Obama to "get our money back". And that, from people who DON'T HAVE "our money", having paid it back with interest or not having borrowed it at all.

Obama's rationale is that the financial industry caused this problem, and that they, as a whole, have benefited from TARP. But where were the trials establishing some sort of guilt? Did I sleep through them? Or... is it no longer necessary in this country to PROVE that someone is guilty before they're penalized?

Weren't those financial institutions that didn't take bailout money subject to the "stress tests"?

The "trials" you speak of was simply looking at their balance sheets. There are "trials" going on right now in congressional hearings trying to establish just how secure they are and will continue to be, now that it's back to business as usual.

Do you want business as usual with these guys? I sure don't.

 

[MaggieMae]

How do you think the FDIC is funded (which insures small community banks)?? By FEES assessed those banks. Why shouldn't investment institutions (which are not really "banks" at all) be insured against their own potential losses?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to have that particular discussion then?

It wouldn't matter. You'd still holler that he's imposing a new requirement on "free markets." Screw all the damage that some of those "free markets" are "free" to do. The fee being imposed right now on lenders is a temporary one anyway, until the TARP money is fully repaid.

 

[Vel]

Ok... GM and Chrysler are big employers that were deemed too big to fail. They took taxpayer money to bailout the poor decisions their management teams had made. So to insure that we, the taxpayers, never have to bail out their future bad decisions, we should assess fines on Ford. Under the Obama ( and Maggie ) plan wouldn't that make sense?

 

[Murf76]

Weren't those financial institutions that didn't take bailout money subject to the "stress tests"?

The "trials" you speak of was simply looking at their balance sheets. There are "trials" going on right now in congressional hearings trying to establish just how secure they are and will continue to be, now that it's back to business as usual.

Do you want business as usual with these guys? I sure don't.

BB&T didn't fail the "stress test". They were well-capitalized. Their balance sheet was fine.
But they were strong-armed anyway, as were others.

Excerpt:

Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), American Express (AXP, Fortune 500) and Bank of New York Mellon were among the nine banks that regulators said do not need to raise more capital. The others were Capital One Financial, BB&T, U.S. Bancorp, State Street and insurer MetLife.

(more...)
Stress test results: Banks face $75B capital shortfall - May. 7, 2009

It wouldn't matter. You'd still holler that he's imposing a new requirement on "free markets." Screw all the damage that some of those "free markets" are "free" to do. The fee being imposed right now on lenders is a temporary one anyway, until the TARP money is fully repaid.

You mistake Republicanism if you think Republicans don't recognize the need for some regulation. We do. But just like with any other legislation, there are intended and unintended consequences. We like regulation to be used as minimally as possible and only at clear need.

Let us not forget, there were LOTS of regulations already in place before this crisis. But they weren't getting the job done, weren't well enforced, and were actively encouraging lenders to lower their lending standards.

At the bottom line, this is a populist shake-down of the financial industry from Washington. You or I would face PRISON if we emulated them. And just because these financial industries are unpopular and the "fee" is supposedly temporary... doesn't make it right.

 

[code1211]

If a company is on the verge of collapsing, and bringing the entire banking system down with it, and the government bails them out, I see no reason for them not to stop banks from using that bailout money to give huge bonuses.

The government has made NO restrictions on "how much profit can be made".

The government is not "reaching their collective hands in". They are taking the money back.
Let's start from somewhere else.

Do you believe that the banks should have been bailed out? Yes or No?

This is where your argument has a disconnect. The money is being paid back with interest. The government is getting all of the money back from the banks. The money they are taking is simply more money. It has nothing to do with the bail out and is simply the Big 0 creating an "enemy of the people" so we can hate them instead of him.

As always, he is simply working a game so you won't know which cup the bean is under.

How do you think the FDIC is funded (which insures small community banks)?? By FEES assessed those banks. Why shouldn't investment institutions (which are not really "banks" at all) be insured against their own potential losses?

They are. There is an entire industry called reinsurance which insures the investment institutions.

The FDIC is supported by fees from banks. If Obama had presented the "fee" in this way, that would be one thing. If he had presented as a fee to reflect the defacto guarentee of all lending instituions stability by the Federal government, that would be another. By bailing out the banks, he showed the world that the US Government backed the banks and that there loans both drawn and taken were good.

The Big 0 did niether of these. In his usual "create an enemy" approach to all things, he said the banks were evil and they have to pay up. This is playground rhetoric and it's hitting its target. This is classic class warfare. Divide the popoulation so everyone sees enemies in everyone else.

It is not a good thing when the Leader, that's spelled Fuhrer in German, creates an enemy so he can create a policy.

With the Big 0 it always has been and always will be a game of pitting one group against another. Every word he says is a wedge into the society.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses

By Kara Rowland
In a bid to toughen up on Wall Street, the Obama administration next month will ask Congress to impose a new tax on big financial firms, with the president arguing they have to pay for sending the world's financial system into chaos. ( Hmmm... )

( makes you wonder just what was in that book that Hugo Chavez gave to Obama. A blueprint for takeover perhaps? )
The fee would cover all applicable Wall Street banks -- including those that did not accept any money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- as the White House argues all firms benefited from the bailout, even if only indirectly. It would be assessed on a bank's liabilities, or its assets minus its core capital, the official said, adding that deposits already facing a separate assessment would be exempt.

( You have to LOVE this next part. You can't punish the unions you know )
The fee would not include U.S. automakers, who have received more than $75 billion in TARP funds. The official said that's because the fee is designed for financial institutions and does not work "for a more industrial company." The administration likewise determined taxing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would "not be productive for the taxpayer."

Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses - Washington Times

Now how does this equal a "government takeover"?

Because all I see is Obama wanting his bailout money back.

They got their money BACK from the banks dumb shit.

 

[code1211]

If the government decides what compensation can be paid, how much profit can be made, and can reach their collective hands in and take the money from private companies, then those companies have essentially been taken over.

Obama's rationale is that the financial industry caused this problem, and that they, as a whole, have benefited from TARP. But where were the trials establishing some sort of guilt? Did I sleep through them? Or... is it no longer necessary in this country to PROVE that someone is guilty before they're penalized?

Excellent point on a good (albeit a little long) post. I hate it when that happens. Sometimes I look up after typing and think, "Who in their right ming will read this?"

 

[code1211]

If a company is on the verge of collapsing, and bringing the entire banking system down with it, and the government bails them out, I see no reason for them not to stop banks from using that bailout money to give huge bonuses.

The government has made NO restrictions on "how much profit can be made".

The government is not "reaching their collective hands in". They are taking the money back.

Let's start from somewhere else.

Do you believe that the banks should have been bailed out? Yes or No?

Oooooh.... let me "tag in", Vel6377...

No. I, personally don't believe they should have. But let's assume that it really was necessary to bail out the ones who were in imminent danger of collapse. By what right did the central government FORCE well-capitalized banks to take this money?

And don't say it didn't happen. Here's John Alliison of BB&T on Stossel last week describing how it happened him:
[youtube]gCEdy_yHkQE[/youtube]

So... let's say a guy named Bennie comes into your place of business. And Bennie says to you... "Lookie here fella. I'm gonna lend you some money, see. And you're gonna take it, 'cause if you don't... bad things might happen. Then, I'm gonna tell you what's what around this here business and I'm gonna be the one makin' all the rules from now on. And you're gonna pay me that money back when I say you can and give me whatever interest on it I happen to decide. Then, when all that's done... I might come around every now and then for a bit more dough. 'Cause, afterall, you wouldn't be here exceptin' for me."

Do you think Bennie might be running a little protection racket? Think Bennie might find himself all dolled up in an orange jumpsuit, trying to avoid 'date night'?
What if Bennie just skipped all the "lending out some money" bullshit and decided to just shake you down now and then because he figures you've got plenty of dough and there are some guys down at the pool hall who are low on funds?

Bottom line, this is raw EXTORTION. It's class warfare. It's cronyism. Note that the GM and Chrysler were pretty much handed to the unions in a "surgical bankruptsy", and they're exempt. Note that unions are also proposed to be exempt from the "Cadillac Healthcare Tax", probably unconstitutionally. And you people are going to sit there and try to tell us that this isn't socialist redistribution of hard cold cash, not a "government takeover"??? Seriously?

If I take your car and you have no means of getting it back... who's car is it? Is it mine or is it yours? Nominally, it might be yours, but does it make a difference really?
Because if I have the car and you can't get it back... you're walking and I'm riding.

Complete control of a thing is de facto ownership of it.

Progressives want to offer us a "third way", a nice little marriage between private business and government. But there's another word for that state of affairs...fascism. Fascism, the facade of Socialism (once quite popular), which leaves businesses nominally owned by the private sector and operationally controlled by the government. A "government takeover" in all but name.

You say the government hasn't placed any restrictions on profits... but wasn't it "massive profits and obscene bonuses" that prompted Obama to "get our money back". And that, from people who DON'T HAVE "our money", having paid it back with interest or not having borrowed it at all.

Obama's rationale is that the financial industry caused this problem, and that they, as a whole, have benefited from TARP. But where were the trials establishing some sort of guilt? Did I sleep through them? Or... is it no longer necessary in this country to PROVE that someone is guilty before they're penalized?

Weren't those financial institutions that didn't take bailout money subject to the "stress tests"?

The "trials" you speak of was simply looking at their balance sheets. There are "trials" going on right now in congressional hearings trying to establish just how secure they are and will continue to be, now that it's back to business as usual.

Do you want business as usual with these guys? I sure don't.

You are simply amazing. You advocate the abandonment of any vestige of legality in order to punish the banking industry for things that you do not understand, that are not proscribed by law, that are only a political device and will not create solutions or solve problems.

It is our law makers that made the laws that the banks were following to get into trouble.

Have you no disdain for for the graft accepting, bribe trading, money grubbing, lying, swindling cheats that we have elected? We'd be better of with pimps and whores. They deal in smaller numbers.

 

[code1211]

How do you think the FDIC is funded (which insures small community banks)?? By FEES assessed those banks. Why shouldn't investment institutions (which are not really "banks" at all) be insured against their own potential losses?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to have that particular discussion then?

It wouldn't matter. You'd still holler that he's imposing a new requirement on "free markets." Screw all the damage that some of those "free markets" are "free" to do. The fee being imposed right now on lenders is a temporary one anyway, until the TARP money is fully repaid.

So the banks, which are pepaying the TARP funds, need to pay the FEE so the the UAW, which is not repaying the TARP Funds can continue to reneg on its committment until the TARP funds are paid back.

Right...

Cue the circus music.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ok... GM and Chrysler are big employers that were deemed too big to fail. They took taxpayer money to bailout the poor decisions their management teams had made. So to insure that we, the taxpayers, never have to bail out their future bad decisions, we should assess fines on Ford. Under the Obama ( and Maggie ) plan wouldn't that make sense?

The automakers don't lend out money. What they DO, in addition to selling vehicles, is employ a helluva lot of people, including small businesses that support their industry.

 

[noose4]

Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses

By Kara Rowland
In a bid to toughen up on Wall Street, the Obama administration next month will ask Congress to impose a new tax on big financial firms, with the president arguing they have to pay for sending the world's financial system into chaos. ( Hmmm... )

( makes you wonder just what was in that book that Hugo Chavez gave to Obama. A blueprint for takeover perhaps? )
The fee would cover all applicable Wall Street banks -- including those that did not accept any money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- as the White House argues all firms benefited from the bailout, even if only indirectly. It would be assessed on a bank's liabilities, or its assets minus its core capital, the official said, adding that deposits already facing a separate assessment would be exempt.

( You have to LOVE this next part. You can't punish the unions you know )
The fee would not include U.S. automakers, who have received more than $75 billion in TARP funds. The official said that's because the fee is designed for financial institutions and does not work "for a more industrial company." The administration likewise determined taxing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would "not be productive for the taxpayer."

Obama to unveil bank tax to recoup losses - Washington Times

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, rampaging Wall Street has brought our nation to its knees, they need more regulating and this tax is a good start.

 

[MaggieMae]

Weren't those financial institutions that didn't take bailout money subject to the "stress tests"?

The "trials" you speak of was simply looking at their balance sheets. There are "trials" going on right now in congressional hearings trying to establish just how secure they are and will continue to be, now that it's back to business as usual.

Do you want business as usual with these guys? I sure don't.

BB&T didn't fail the "stress test". They were well-capitalized. Their balance sheet was fine.
But they were strong-armed anyway, as were others.

Excerpt:

Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), American Express (AXP, Fortune 500) and Bank of New York Mellon were among the nine banks that regulators said do not need to raise more capital. The others were Capital One Financial, BB&T, U.S. Bancorp, State Street and insurer MetLife.

(more...)
Stress test results: Banks face $75B capital shortfall - May. 7, 2009

It wouldn't matter. You'd still holler that he's imposing a new requirement on "free markets." Screw all the damage that some of those "free markets" are "free" to do. The fee being imposed right now on lenders is a temporary one anyway, until the TARP money is fully repaid.

You mistake Republicanism if you think Republicans don't recognize the need for some regulation. We do. But just like with any other legislation, there are intended and unintended consequences. We like regulation to be used as minimally as possible and only at clear need.

Let us not forget, there were LOTS of regulations already in place before this crisis. But they weren't getting the job done, weren't well enforced, and were actively encouraging lenders to lower their lending standards.

At the bottom line, this is a populist shake-down of the financial industry from Washington. You or I would face PRISON if we emulated them. And just because these financial industries are unpopular and the "fee" is supposedly temporary... doesn't make it right.

Sorry, but I know too many people personally who have been devasted financially by what started as a huge securities ripoff by the very lending institutions which apparently now have your deepest sympathy, as they fully intend to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again.

The intricacies of those hellish deals are still not completely understood, even by economists holding Ph.D's. Who knew until the night before that even BofA was also in trouble? Do we really know that's on the books of BB&T? What do you suppose they intend to do with the troubled assets they recently purchased from bankrupt Colonial Bank? Nobody else wanted that albatross. As Paulson reminded everyone at the pinnacle of this disaster, with the banking industry, it's all about "liquidity."

You can defend them all you want and inject your political ideology to justify that, but if anyone's going to prison, it should be the greedy bastards who thought they could get away with it.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is where your argument has a disconnect. The money is being paid back with interest. The government is getting all of the money back from the banks. The money they are taking is simply more money. It has nothing to do with the bail out and is simply the Big 0 creating an "enemy of the people" so we can hate them instead of him.

As always, he is simply working a game so you won't know which cup the bean is under.

How do you think the FDIC is funded (which insures small community banks)?? By FEES assessed those banks. Why shouldn't investment institutions (which are not really "banks" at all) be insured against their own potential losses?

They are. There is an entire industry called reinsurance which insures the investment institutions.

The FDIC is supported by fees from banks. If Obama had presented the "fee" in this way, that would be one thing. If he had presented as a fee to reflect the defacto guarentee of all lending instituions stability by the Federal government, that would be another. By bailing out the banks, he showed the world that the US Government backed the banks and that there loans both drawn and taken were good.

The Big 0 did niether of these. In his usual "create an enemy" approach to all things, he said the banks were evil and they have to pay up. This is playground rhetoric and it's hitting its target. This is classic class warfare. Divide the popoulation so everyone sees enemies in everyone else.

It is not a good thing when the Leader, that's spelled Fuhrer in German, creates an enemy so he can create a policy.

With the Big 0 it always has been and always will be a game of pitting one group against another. Every word he says is a wedge into the society.

Injecting that kind of bullshit anywhere simply reduces your credibility.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oooooh.... let me "tag in", Vel6377...

No. I, personally don't believe they should have. But let's assume that it really was necessary to bail out the ones who were in imminent danger of collapse. By what right did the central government FORCE well-capitalized banks to take this money?

And don't say it didn't happen. Here's John Alliison of BB&T on Stossel last week describing how it happened him:
[youtube]gCEdy_yHkQE[/youtube]

So... let's say a guy named Bennie comes into your place of business. And Bennie says to you... "Lookie here fella. I'm gonna lend you some money, see. And you're gonna take it, 'cause if you don't... bad things might happen. Then, I'm gonna tell you what's what around this here business and I'm gonna be the one makin' all the rules from now on. And you're gonna pay me that money back when I say you can and give me whatever interest on it I happen to decide. Then, when all that's done... I might come around every now and then for a bit more dough. 'Cause, afterall, you wouldn't be here exceptin' for me."

Do you think Bennie might be running a little protection racket? Think Bennie might find himself all dolled up in an orange jumpsuit, trying to avoid 'date night'?
What if Bennie just skipped all the "lending out some money" bullshit and decided to just shake you down now and then because he figures you've got plenty of dough and there are some guys down at the pool hall who are low on funds?

Bottom line, this is raw EXTORTION. It's class warfare. It's cronyism. Note that the GM and Chrysler were pretty much handed to the unions in a "surgical bankruptsy", and they're exempt. Note that unions are also proposed to be exempt from the "Cadillac Healthcare Tax", probably unconstitutionally. And you people are going to sit there and try to tell us that this isn't socialist redistribution of hard cold cash, not a "government takeover"??? Seriously?

If I take your car and you have no means of getting it back... who's car is it? Is it mine or is it yours? Nominally, it might be yours, but does it make a difference really?
Because if I have the car and you can't get it back... you're walking and I'm riding.

Complete control of a thing is de facto ownership of it.

Progressives want to offer us a "third way", a nice little marriage between private business and government. But there's another word for that state of affairs...fascism. Fascism, the facade of Socialism (once quite popular), which leaves businesses nominally owned by the private sector and operationally controlled by the government. A "government takeover" in all but name.

You say the government hasn't placed any restrictions on profits... but wasn't it "massive profits and obscene bonuses" that prompted Obama to "get our money back". And that, from people who DON'T HAVE "our money", having paid it back with interest or not having borrowed it at all.

Obama's rationale is that the financial industry caused this problem, and that they, as a whole, have benefited from TARP. But where were the trials establishing some sort of guilt? Did I sleep through them? Or... is it no longer necessary in this country to PROVE that someone is guilty before they're penalized?

Weren't those financial institutions that didn't take bailout money subject to the "stress tests"?

The "trials" you speak of was simply looking at their balance sheets. There are "trials" going on right now in congressional hearings trying to establish just how secure they are and will continue to be, now that it's back to business as usual.

Do you want business as usual with these guys? I sure don't.

You are simply amazing. You advocate the abandonment of any vestige of legality in order to punish the banking industry for things that you do not understand, that are not proscribed by law, that are only a political device and will not create solutions or solve problems.

It is our law makers that made the laws that the banks were following to get into trouble.

Have you no disdain for for the graft accepting, bribe trading, money grubbing, lying, swindling cheats that we have elected? We'd be better of with pimps and whores. They deal in smaller numbers.

Correction:

It is our law makers that made the laws that the banks were NOT following to get into trouble.

 

[MaggieMae]

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to have that particular discussion then?

It wouldn't matter. You'd still holler that he's imposing a new requirement on "free markets." Screw all the damage that some of those "free markets" are "free" to do. The fee being imposed right now on lenders is a temporary one anyway, until the TARP money is fully repaid.

So the banks, which are pepaying the TARP funds, need to pay the FEE so the the UAW, which is not repaying the TARP Funds can continue to reneg on its committment until the TARP funds are paid back.

Right...

Cue the circus music.

Cue the banking lobby, don't you mean? The circus will begin once this gets to Congress, which must approve it, so until then I wouldn't get my panties in a wad.