Indefensible

[Azazello1313]

I think it's just you. I interpreted the awkward sounding name to be future financial crises as opposed to the one just past, hence it's creation of a pool for future use. Might be off on this though.

 

wrong. the entire premise is to suck off some additional money to make the taxpayer whole after TARP.

 

here you go, whitehouse.gov...

 

President Obama Proposes Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to Recoup Every Last Penny for American Taxpayers

 

WASHINGTON, DC- President Barack Obama will join his economic team today to propose a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to be imposed on the debt of the largest financial firms until the American people are fully compensated for the extraordinary assistance they provided to Wall Street.

 

“My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed. And my determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people – who have not been made whole, and who continue to face real hardship in this recession,” said President Barack Obama. “That’s why I’m proposing a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to be imposed on major financial firms until the American people are fully compensated for the extraordinary assistance they provided to Wall Street.”

 

The fee will be in place at least 10 years, but even longer if needed to pay back every penny of TARP. This will not be a cost borne by community banks or small firms; only the largest firms with more than $50 billion in assets will be affected. In fact, 60% of the revenue will come from the 10 largest financial firms.

 

has nothing to do with potential future crises. so again, the model of "responsibility" being offered here:

1) give banks that screwed up a massive taxpayer bailout

2) tax all "large" banks, irrespective of whether they asked for, received, or paid back their bailout to make up for the loss

3) more government power. yipee!!!

 

if it WERE being portrayed as a sort of insurance premium against future bailouts, then it would make a little bit of sense (along the lines of the mankiw post I linked above). but as a method of somehow holding banks to account for past bad behavior (the administration's own justifification), it is just laughable.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Azazello1313

[Ursa Majoris]

has nothing to do with potential future crises. so again, the model of "responsibility" being offered here:

1) give banks that screwed up a massive taxpayer bailout Water under the bridge. Nothing to be done about that now other than get the money back. Not only that, IIRC the administration initiating the bailouts didn't have a president whose name begins with O.

2) tax all "large" banks, irrespective of whether they asked for, received, or paid back their bailout to make up for the loss I guess I should be wiping the tears from my eyes for the poor widdle banks and them getting beaten up by that nasty Obama bully but for some reason, my eyes remain free of salty moisture. In other words, I don't give two chits.

3) more government power. yipee!!! Not really, just another tax. It actually has a neat benefit in that it will be difficult for the big guys to dump this on the customer, since smaller banks won't be paying it.

See bolded bits above

[bpwallace49]

See bolded bits above

 

Actually good points. Especially how they cant pass it on to the consumer (at least easily) because then peiople would just flee to smaller banks, which indirectly makes the big boys smaller and NOt "too big to fail" anymore.

[yo mama]

if youre all so pissed, why not go work for a bank?

Because I wanted a more ethical career as a lawyer.

[bpwallace49]

Because I wanted a more ethical career as a lawyer.

 

well played

[Perchoutofwater]

It has been interesting watching a huddle regular go from a rational if somewhat liberal person to a quasi-socialist in the last year or so.

[Ursa Majoris]

It has been interesting watching a huddle regular go from a rational if somewhat liberal person to a quasi-socialist in the last year or so.

Because I don't care about a 0.15% tax on banks?

 

Allow me to confirm that I wouldn't care if it was 15%, never mind decimal points. There's nothing socialist about not wanting to allow large organizations like banks to ruin capitalism.

[Azazello1313]

See bolded bits above

Water under the bridge.

 

I guess you should tell that to the administration selling this as payback for TARP

 

more government power. yipee!!! Not really, just another tax.

 

a tax whereby the government becomes the implicit underwriter against all bank default. yeah, that doesn't increase their power at all.

 

There's nothing something very socialist about not wanting to allow large organizations like banks governments to ruin capitalism.

 

fixed.

[dmarc117]

Because I wanted a more ethical career as a lawyer.

 

 

well played

 

 

as a lawyer?

[Azazello1313]

interesting that this tax hits some of the banks that took TARP funds (sometimes involuntarily) and, in most cases, paid it back with interest.

 

who doesn't it hit? GM, chrysler, fannie mae and freddie mac.

 

yes, it's all about accountability

[Ursa Majoris]

interesting that this tax hits some of the banks that took TARP funds (sometimes involuntarily) and, in most cases, paid it back with interest.

 

who doesn't it hit? GM, chrysler, fannie mae and freddie mac.

 

yes, it's all about accountability

It doesn't affect the manufacturers because they aren't likely to put the world's financial systems in peril. The idea is to make the financial companies refrain from taking on too much risk (though I seriously doubt this is going to work without a whole raft of other measures). Fred and Fan are a different story and I would guess that since they are effectively nationalized, there's little point in taxing them as the gubment would be taxing itself.

[Perchoutofwater]

It doesn't affect the manufacturers because they aren't likely to put the world's financial systems in peril. The idea is to make the financial companies refrain from taking on too much risk (though I seriously doubt this is going to work without a whole raft of other measures). Fred and Fan are a different story and I would guess that since they are effectively nationalized, there's little point in taxing them as the gubment would be taxing itself.

 

Freddie and Frannie need to be dissolved or at the very least have the link between them and the government officially cut. I am convinced they and the politicians around them are as much to blame if not more than anyone else in this recession.

[Perchoutofwater]

Is taxing big banks only constitutional?

[Ursa Majoris]

Is taxing big banks only constitutional?

Bring it on. Only a matter of time before we start lining this filth up in front of a ditch and begin erasing their stain from the planet.

[Brentastic]

How many ex Goldman employees are now advisers to Obama?

Probably the same amount who were advisors to Clinton and Bush.

[bpwallace49]

Probably the same amount who were advisors to Clinton and Bush.

 

truth

[Perchoutofwater]

Probably the same amount who were advisors to Clinton and Bush.

 

No doubt. Which said they wouldn't have lobbyist in their administration and wouldn't hire anyone to suggest regulations over a field unless they had been removed from that field for two years?

[bpwallace49]

No doubt. Which said they wouldn't have lobbyist in their administration and wouldn't hire anyone to suggest regulations over a field unless they had been removed from that field for two years?

 

I guess that means when they worked for the right it was Ok then . . . . You REALLY hate Obama dont you Perch? I mean in a deep visceral way? Like he personally wronged you . . .

[caddyman]

I guess that means when they worked for the right it was Ok then . . . . You REALLY hate Obama dont you Perch? I mean in a deep visceral way? Like he personally wronged you . . .

The point here is that Obamer said he would be different. He is anything but different and possibly worse. Many of the things he said he would "change" are not happening. When this is pointed out you don't seem to have an issue with it. You must really love him in a depp visceral way. NTTAWWT.

[Perchoutofwater]

I guess that means when they worked for the right it was Ok then . . . . You REALLY hate Obama dont you Perch? I mean in a deep visceral way? Like he personally wronged you . . .

 

Nope, but I do think he is oh, what is that word you keep calling the GOP, oh yeah a hypocrite. Actually I think he may be hypocrite-in-chief. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[bpwallace49]

Nope, but I do think he is oh, what is that word you keep calling the GOP, oh yeah a hypocrite. Actually I think he may be hypocrite-in-chief. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

In a lot of ways I agree with you. Some of his inexpereince in public office is showing. Seasoned liars . .oops . . POLITICANS do not give specific timelines to things they cannot solely control, nor do they promise things that is outside their scope of power to deliver.

 

-Sigh- Perch I am calling ALL politicians hypocrites. You just cant accept that people in the party you associate with could possibly be anything but noble public servants valiantly striving for the common man.

[Perchoutofwater]

Sigh- Perch I am calling ALL politicians hypocrites. You just cant accept that people in the party you associate with could possibly be anything but noble public servants valiantly striving for the common man.

 

Not true at all, the GOP is full of hypocrites too, which is partially why I find myself relating more and more to libertarians or independent fiscal conservatives than the GOP. BTW, I'm pretty sure Obama has some control over who he has as advisers, so that isn't inexperience, just lies.

[bpwallace49]

Not true at all, the GOP is full of hypocrites too, which is partially why I find myself relating more and more to libertarians or independent fiscal conservatives than the GOP. BTW, I'm pretty sure Obama has some control over who he has as advisers, so that isn't inexperience, just lies.

 

Putting a time frame on something is inexperience. Give him a year or two . . he will be extremely vague about end dates like a seasoned champ. Plus he has used advisors like Emmanual, who has no White House expereince as his Chief of Staff.

 

"Mission Accomplished"

[yo mama]

Is taxing big banks only constitutional?

99.9999999999999999% chance that it is. It only has to meet the "rational basis" threshold. And everything short of putting US citizens into concentration camps during times of war has passed that test.

[Perchoutofwater]

99.9999999999999999% chance that it is. It only has to meet the "rational basis" threshold. And everything short of putting US citizens into concentration camps during times of war has passed that test.

 

That is sad, when you consider the Constitution was to limit the powers of government, and now it is largely ignored.