Friday, January 15, 2010

‘We want our money back and we're going to get it,’ president says

Citing ‘obscene’ bonuses, Obama to tax banks
‘We want our money back and we're going to get it,’ president says

Wow! I thought this administration had reached the pinnacle of arrogance; I admit it I was way wrong.

Obama wants his money back and he's gonna get it. Let me count the ways that pisses me off. First, I'm pretty sure not a penny of the money was his;. Second what money they do steal from the banks is not going to benefit the taxpayer in any way, shape or form; and finally it is not the business of the government to oversee the bonuses of any private industry.

I know your saying "but they took federal money". Oh, it gets better; read on my friend.

The following collection of nouns, verbs and inane drivel comes from MSNBC. You can check out the original crapfest here.

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama told banks Thursday they should pay a new tax to recoup the cost of bailing out foundering firms at the height of the financial crisis. "We want our money back," he said.

In a brief appearance with advisers at the White House, Obama branded the latest round of bank bonuses as "obscene." But he said his goal was to prevent such excesses in the future, not to punish banks for past behavior.

Really? I wonder who's going to prevent this socialist/Marxist administration from this kind of behavior in the future?

The tax, which would require congressional approval, would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates. "If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers," Obama said.

Wait for it...

Advisers believe the administration can make an argument that banks should tap their bonus pools for the fee instead of passing the cost on to consumers.

The president's tone was emphatic and populist, capitalizing on public antipathy toward Wall Street. With the sharp words, he also tried to deflect some of the growing skepticism aimed at his own economic policies as unemployment stubbornly hovers around 10 percent.

The proposed 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of large financial institutions would apply only to those companies with assets of more than $50 billion — a group estimated at about 50. Administration officials estimate that 60 percent of the revenue would come from the 10 biggest ones.

...and here it is!

They would have to pay up even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most that did have repaid the infusions.

Wait, what? I thought Obama was fighting to get "our" money back from the evil banks. Seems a bit odd that those who never took a cent, a wise choice methinks, are going to be penalized along with those other evil bastards who have already paid it all back. This guy has cajones the size of coconuts.

Obama said big banks had acted irresponsibility, taken reckless risk for short-term profits and plunged into a crisis of their own making. He cast the struggle ahead as one between the finance industry and average people.

Oh, wait, I thought he was describing his administration here. This administration should restrain itself when it comes to pointing out fiscal irresponsibility. Nuff'said.

"We are already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street, suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair, that by some twisted logic, it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses," Obama said.

Hold on, stop right there. You bunch of mush headed hacks are the ones who gave them taxpayer money to begin with. If you thought they acted recklessly and irresponsibly to begin with, why in God's name would you hand them a few billion more to piss away. The hypocrisy is getting a bit nauseating.

He renewed his call for a regulatory overhaul of the industry and scolded bankers for opposing the tighter oversight in legislation moving through Congress.

Gee, I can't imagine why. Your about to penalize banks that acted responsibly along with those who didn't. I have no idea why they would oppose that. Uh, maybe because Washington is full of idiots who can't balance their own check books or pay their own taxes but somehow think they can run a bank.

"What I'd say to these executives is this: Instead of setting a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I'd suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibility," Obama said.

Well now, those are words I can get behind.I just wish this guy would take his own advice. I think bank lobbyists are going to have a hard time getting anywhere near the Congress and Senate with all of the Union and pharmaceutical lobbyists crowding up the place.

At issue is the net cost of the fund initiated by the Bush administration to help financial institutions get rid of soured assets. The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) has expanded to help auto companies and homeowners.

Maybe Obama should be on TV asking all the automakers and homeowners to give back his money. I wonder how that would play on prime time?

Insurer American International Group, the largest beneficiary at nearly $70 billion, would have to pay the tax. But General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, whose $66 billion in government loans are not expected to be repaid fully, would not.

At least MSNBC saw fit to point that little fact out. But then they went on...

Administration officials said financial institutions were both a significant cause of the crisis and chief beneficiaries of the rescue efforts, should bear the brunt of the cost.

Bankers did not hide their objections.

"Politics have overtaken the economics," said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, a group representing large Wall Street institutions. "This is a punitive tax on companies that repaid TARP in full or never took TARP."

Even before details came out, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., said: "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea."

Its not just a bad idea, I'm pretty sure its unconstitutional. One thing I have noticed though; this administration would never let anything as insignificant as the constitution stand in the way of socialism.

Obama is trying to accelerate terms that require the president to seek a way to recoup unrecovered money in 2013, five years after the law was enacted.

So far, the Treasury has given $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion has been repaid and banks have paid an additional $11 billion in interest and dividends.

Wait, let's see T.A.R.P. was $700 billion minus $247 billion...Where in the hell did the other $453 billion go? How does he figure the banks were the "Chief beneficiaries" of those funds when they received less than 50% and have already paid back a majority of that? Math in Washington must be different than math in the south.

In Congress, Democrats embraced Obama's proposal while Republicans rejected it.


"I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the industry that, A, caused these problems more than any other and, B, benefited from the activity, should be contributing," said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

No that's just funny. Franks was one of the reprobates that strong-armed banks into making these crap loans to begin with. Now he is going to stand up and lecture those same banks about responsibility? What a steaming pile of crap.

But GOP Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, who's on Frank's committee, called it a "job-killing initiatives that will further cripple the economy by increasing fees passed on to consumers and small businesses, while reducing consumer credit."

All those things Garrett said may be true but it pales in comparison to the rampant, systemic corruption that festers in our nations capital. This is friggin unbelievable.

Bookmark our site!

Bookmark and Share

Consider advertising on our site!


Michael Avitabile said...

Nice work

Anonymous said...

The problem about your blog is that you primarily engage in red-baiting tactics and appeals to emotions.

I do not take conservatives seriously when they engage in red-baiting. Red-baiting is tactic used by Joe McCarthy.

To improve your blogging, I would recommend that you restrain from red-baiting and use more facts and logic in posts.

You might disagree with Obama's policies and want to have a more free-market approach to handling the economy, but to engage in red-baiting aganist Obama does not persuade others to your cause.