Government Takeover? It sure looks that way.

[Vel]

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

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

 

[Vel]

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.

Did you miss the part "including those that did not accept any money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program" ? Please explain why those institutions should be taxed because others had problems. And please explain why Freddie and Fannie should be exempt? And how about GM and Chrysler's financial divisions? Please elaborate.

 

[Vel]

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.

In addition.. it's NOT Obama's bailout money. That would be TAXPAYER money on loan from China.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Did you miss the part "including those that did not accept any money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program" ? Please explain why those institutions should be taxed because others had problems. And please explain why Freddie and Fannie should be exempt? And how about GM and Chrysler's financial divisions? Please elaborate.

Did you miss the part where I asked how this equals a "government takeover"? That was the point of my post. All of the things you just responded with are true, but have nothing to do with your supposed "government takeover".

So, how does anything you've said equal a government takeover?

 

[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.

 

[Sinatra]

Now how does this equal a "government takeover"?

Because all I see is Obama wanting his bailout money back.[/QUOTE]

_____

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...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Even an imperfect person can understand this..

 

[namvet]

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.

he should have never given out to start with. he's been conned. and why not it is OPM. I don't blame them i'd take it and run to if someone that stupid gave it to me. gez

 

[code1211]

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.

Perhaps you'd see something else if you compare this approach the Big 0 is taking to the banks which are paying back the TARP funds with the approach the Big 0 is taking with the Auto Industry which is not paying back their bail out.

The money this will generate is only about 9 billion. That totals less than the amount of the bonuses going to the executives that the Big 0 is attacking. Obama is rewarding the Auto industry which is still failing and penalizing the banks which are now succeeding.

Was the purpose of the bail out to create contributing and functioning assets for the society or to create permanently crippled and dependant parasites?

What does this action imply?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

And the big banks that already screwed us so heavily that they didn't need a bailout (like Capital One) would pay the fee too. Horrors. "Fee"??? What's a "fee"?? Oh, you know, that little fine print item YOU FUCKERS charge people at the drop of a hat. Any excess will go into an escrow-like fund that would be used for future bailouts, if necessary, so that taxpayers don't get hit again. Nice.

I find it absolutely incredible that some people are now actually SUPPORTING the actions of these banking institutions which were at the root of the economic collapse.

 

[AllieBaba]

If Obama wants his bailout money back, he should retrieve it from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and GMC.

What a gomer.

 

[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.

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Did you miss the part "including those that did not accept any money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program" ? Please explain why those institutions should be taxed because others had problems. And please explain why Freddie and Fannie should be exempt? And how about GM and Chrysler's financial divisions? Please elaborate.

F&F isn't stabilized yet, so adding another fee would be counterproductive at this point. GM and Chrysler don't lend money. (Although the tax would indeed also be levied on GMAC, a subsidiary of GE.) Do you even know what those "fees" are for?

Because of its focus on borrowed money other than deposits, the tax would fall more heavily on investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Retail banks such as Wells Fargo and Capital One mostly rely on deposits as a funding source for lending.

The size of the tax is based on the administration's estimate that it will lose $117 billion of the $700 billion authorized by Congress. If the final loss from that program exceeds $90 billion, the government would continue to collect the tax until it is recouped. If the total loss equals or falls short of $90 billion, the tax would expire after 10 years.

 

[MaggieMae]

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...[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[code1211]

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.

And the big banks that already screwed us so heavily that they didn't need a bailout (like Capital One) would pay the fee too. Horrors. "Fee"??? What's a "fee"?? Oh, you know, that little fine print item YOU FUCKERS charge people at the drop of a hat. Any excess will go into an escrow-like fund that would be used for future bailouts, if necessary, so that taxpayers don't get hit again. Nice.

I find it absolutely incredible that some people are now actually SUPPORTING the actions of these banking institutions which were at the root of the economic collapse.

The path of reality is difficult to locate at some times. The banking industry is pretty heavily regulated. Anything they did was within the law.

As always, the problem here is not with the banks, it is with the lawmakers who would sell their own babies for boat anchors if there was a contribution in it. The bankers may have asked for the long leash, but it was our law makers that fed out the line.

In return, they got cash and plenty of it. Google Chris Dodd and Mortgage and see what you find.

 

[MaggieMae]

If Obama wants his bailout money back, he should retrieve it from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and GMC.

What a gomer.

I hope that was a joke--as funny as your new avatar. (Seriously)

 

[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?

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?

 

[Murf76]

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?