Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 16, 2010 in Economy, Politics | 7 comments

Obama Vows to “Collect Every Dime” of Taxpayer Money


From the transcript of his weekly address:

We want the taxpayers’ money back, and we’re going to collect every dime. That is why, this week, I proposed a new fee on major financial firms to compensate the American people for the extraordinary assistance they provided to the financial industry. And the fee would be in place until the American taxpayer is made whole. Only the largest financial firms with more than $50 billion in assets will be affected, not community banks. And the bigger the firm – and the more debt it holds – the larger the fee. Because we are not only going to recover our money and help close our deficits; we are going to attack some of the banking practices that led to the crisis.

Some on the left think the fee is too modest. But about a nano-second after the White House outlined its proposal for a “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee” Republicans balked.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2010 The Moderate Voice
  • troosvelt_1858

    My question is the way he phrased it.

    Getting the money back implies that the money is coming from those who got it.

    Yet they are taxing any big bank, even if they didn’t take money, even if they actually were responsible.

  • DLS

    I made a number of postings already about this subject some time ago.

    1. The name of the new multi-year tax is an emotional appeal to losers. It and they are contemptible.

    2. The banks have promptly noted they paid their money back, with interest, already.

    3. This looks very much (all but having tags or signs that say so) like a bailout of Gummint Motors (and a favor to AIG).

    4. Barney Frank revealingly said that this is a way to raise revenues without increasing the deficit.

    5. These tax costs will be passed to the consumers, as is normal and expected. Great for the economy!

    6. I wonder, now that the unions got a $60B health-care tax-relief bribe, if some of the tax money will be redirected to health care (before Dems can get their hands on it and spend it on other pet projects).

  • $199537

    Crooks rob banks because that’s where the money is, and Obama is using the same principle here. Although the government has thrown money around liberally, most of the institutions they’ve thrown it at are still foundering. Banks still have money, and the government wants it.

    I am all for the banks paying back what they borrowed, and I am even OK with setting tight restrictions on executive pay and bonuses. When private businesses take taxpayers money they are dancing with the devil.

    However this action seems like an over-reach. As Patrick E mentions it applies even to banks that didn’t seem to contribute to the financial meltdown.

    • dduck12

      Correct. Just populism and a tax on taxpayers ultimately (yes, some of them under $250,00).”Get those fat cats, I didn’t run to protect them.” (Opps, I forgot, except when he meets with them at the WH and when he needs campaign contributions in 2012.)

  • ProfElwood

    Fine, take a small portion back. If they can get some of the banker’s bonus money, that’s a bonus. But I hope they don’t forget to fix the root problems that got us here. I’ve seen it happen too often.

  • DLS

    The real question here is not only the dark motives and the real, ugly goals behind this (dressing it up in language and with arguments that appeal to losers exploit them again, but have the opposite effect on the rest of us) — they want to levy a big new tax on a convenient victim with few votes for the next several years at least (nobody other than losers, who approve of this already, believes there is a definite end at this time). We even already know what they’re doing with it — compounding the evil by wasting it on more failed programs (and threatening more, Smiley-Faced PC eco-socialist techno-industo-fascism in the case of Gummint Motors and spending on “green” energy and related industry and government jobs prior to the next elections, perhaps). What’s worse is to what extent it also may be another case of their scrambling headless (HUA, actually) dress-up-and-play-government types who are desperate now to find money to spend, but they don’t know yet on what, because there’s so much they don’t know.

    Add to it, that the move may be hoped (with the appeal to losers — are they ever out of touch) to help them in the public relations and political prospects area as part of their recovery effort and hopes to avoid trouble in the coming elections. There’s no reason not to expect more idiocy like this tax stunt.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    Sounds like a nice way to bundle up money for the next bailout which is inevitable. Is anyone else noticing this elephant standing in the room?

    See markets scare easy, especially when they are on shaky knees and just beginning to stand up. If you come out and say “fundamentally the markets are the same, we are still a boom and bust economy using fiat currency dependent on oil for energy and therefore this will happen again and we now need insurance” markets may falter and investors may pull money out not trusting the current stability when we are discussing the future not really tomorrow. Either way to big to fail companies will be bailed out over and over and we need to attract funds for such an undertaking if we plan on doing so, this of course will happen when the fees stay in place after repaying what is owed. Unless that is we wish to stabilize the markets but that would be far from a free market. Until then they are repaying what they did to the nations finances, not only did they cause the crises willfully with their actions they asked for the remedy that they received and now need to repay in full.

    If you do not wish to be hit with the fees move to a local bank or credit union and stop using these behemoths, I say this as someone using one at this time. After they repay though this will be kept in place by using it as an insurance fund for such a crises I would guess. They can let them fail and watch everything go down with it or socialize their bailout somehow, they can socialize it among their peer banking institutions or they can socialize it in all banks by giving new taxes for all. The last option is of course the one I am used to from the late 80’s on regardless of party which is the US tax payer gets stuck with the bill. So let me think who do I think should have to pay in the long run for large “to big to fail” banks from going down? Gonna have to go with those banks and those of comparable size since they will likely eventually find themselves in similar straights. I wonder how many of those bailout loans over the last 20 or so years have been re-payed in full, I wonder better yet how many were even requested too. I have no idea I just think it would be informative.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com