Disclaimer: I represent banks.

 

From what I've read and heard, President Obama plans on taxing banks that received TARP money and use the tax revenues to cover the likely bail out losses to the fed govt. This really, really bothers me. Many of the big banks that received the TARP money have repaid the money to the govt with interest. The banks satisfied all the conditions imposed at the time the TARP money was loaned to them. Now the govt wants to impose an additional requirement or burden on the banks after the fact: pay a tax to help the govt cover losses on the bail out funds given to AIG and GM.

 

To impose this additional obligation after the fact is wrong, but it really stinks for the banks that were forced to take the TARP funds even though they didn't want or need the TARP money to begin with (the govt was concerned that if only the banks in really bad shape received TARP money, there would be a run on those banks by the depositors, thus dooming those banks. To prevent that, they forced even solid banks to take the TARP money in order to mask which banks the fed govt thought could be fail if they didn't receive TARP money. Which is totally mind blowing when you consider that a major focus of federal securities law is to make sure all material information is disclosed to the public to make sure investors have the info needed to make prudent investment decisions. Seems to me that what the govt was doing was obfuscating the fact that some banks were worse off than others).

 

Any one else bothered by this?

 

Any one else concerned that this may be just another attempt by the govt to protect the automotive union (generally very pro Democrat) at the expense of banks (generally very pro Republican)?

 

Oh and by the way, Barney Frank is upset that some of the banks that received TARP money (and repaid it) are now considering paying what he thinks are excessive bonuses and some believe he is pushing this new tax on banks because he doesn't think it's right for them to do so. Does any one else have a problem with Frank's mentality? What is this country coming to when the govt believes it has the right to determine when bonuses are excessive? I could possibly tolerate govt control of bonuses for those companies still using bail out funds, but in no way on God's green earth should the govt have any say on bonuses paid by companies not in or still in the bail out program. Which is exactly what Frank wants to do from what I've read.

 

If Frank's line of thinking is tolerated, what's next? The govt can decide on how big of a house you can live in? How much money you can earn? How nice of a car you can own?

 

I know a lot of folks were criticized as Chicken Littles when they previously made the charges that the leaders of this administration were socialists. Honestly, I thought some of those folks were a tad over the top myself. But I have to admit that given the recent actions and agenda of the adminstration, I can see now that those folks may not have been foolish in their claims that the sky is falling.

 

Finally, any tax that the banks have to pay will surely be passed down to the banks' customers. Which amounts to another back door tax on middle class Americans, something our President said, while he was campaigning, that he would not do. :madman: While the Democrats said they'd like to prevent the pass down from happening, according to the WSJ the Democrats have privately acknowledged there is no way they can prevent that from happening.

 

I hope folks understand that I am not some far right bomb throwing extremist. While I fervently supported McCain, after the election I said I'd give Obama a chance and if he acted in the moderate way he said he would during his campaign, he could turn out to be a good President because I felt he could pull this country together. Unfortunately, at this time I've seen less and less moderate action and more and more very left leaning action from his administration.

• First, I disagreed with the bailouts from the get-go.
  
• Second, yes, I have a problem with taxing money that was repaid with interest. In essence, it was a loan, not income, and even in my rudimentary stages of understanding economics, loans aren't taxable income.
  
• Third, I do agree that unions are primarily pro Democrat, and financial institutions are primarily pro Republican. I think though, that this whole mess transcends party politics, because both Democrat and Republican have just compounded mess after mess on top of mess.
  
• Fourth, I do agree that banks should have been able to "opt-out" of the TARP money, just as automakers were given the opportunity to present their case against receiving the auto-bailouts.
  
• Fifth, Barney Frank is an idiot, and really, not much else can be said.
  
• Sixth, I still don't think that Obama is a socialist.
  
• Seventh, I still think that Obama is more moderate than you believe. I do think he throws out a lot of ideas, and that the ones that get the focus are the ones that run counter to a certain position (whatever issue is on topic at the time).
  

I don't know if that answers your question(s), but it's the best I can do given my seriously lacking depth of understanding of economics and politics.

The whole notion of changing the rules after the game has been played is a disgrace. Frank is a disgrace and people like him are the reason I will not vote to give any more of my hard earned dollars to the federal government until they prove they can do a better job of managing money.

• First, I disagreed with the bailouts from the get-go.
  
• Second, yes, I have a problem with taxing money that was repaid with interest. In essence, it was a loan, not income, and even in my rudimentary stages of understanding economics, loans aren't taxable income.
  
• Third, I do agree that unions are primarily pro Democrat, and financial institutions are primarily pro Republican. I think though, that this whole mess transcends party politics, because both Democrat and Republican have just compounded mess after mess on top of mess.
  
• Fourth, I do agree that banks should have been able to "opt-out" of the TARP money, just as automakers were given the opportunity to present their case against receiving the auto-bailouts.
  
• Fifth, Barney Frank is an idiot, and really, not much else can be said.
  
• Sixth, I still don't think that Obama is a socialist.
  
• Seventh, I still think that Obama is more moderate than you believe. I do think he throws out a lot of ideas, and that the ones that get the focus are the ones that run counter to a certain position (whatever issue is on topic at the time).
  

I don't know if that answers your question(s), but it's the best I can do given my seriously lacking depth of understanding of economics and politics.

 

I think you answered the questions well.

 

I don't think I'd agree with those claiming Obama is a socialist in the true sense of the word (state ownership of industry). I view him as more of an egalitarist, wanting to use the powers of govt to force the redistribution the wealth, which I am not a fan of. People that want to accumulate more wealth should have to earn it. If for whatever reason they are unable to earn more wealth, then so be it. Harsh I know. But I believe that society as a whole is better off when we require people to work and earn what they have, as opposed to just giving them it. I believe that people value something the earn more than something that is given to them. I believe that if the incentive of accumulating wealth by hard work is hindered or taken away, that many people will choose to no longer work hard and that our ability to compete in the global economy will suffer. I believe that the ability of individuals and companies to accumulate wealth and capital is necessary for our economy to survive. Some will not agree with my philosophy, but that's okay.

• First, I disagreed with the bailouts from the get-go.
  
• Second, yes, I have a problem with taxing money that was repaid with interest. In essence, it was a loan, not income, and even in my rudimentary stages of understanding economics, loans aren't taxable income.
  
• Third, I do agree that unions are primarily pro Democrat, and financial institutions are primarily pro Republican. I think though, that this whole mess transcends party politics, because both Democrat and Republican have just compounded mess after mess on top of mess.
  
• Fourth, I do agree that banks should have been able to "opt-out" of the TARP money, just as automakers were given the opportunity to present their case against receiving the auto-bailouts.
  
• Fifth, Barney Frank is an idiot, and really, not much else can be said.
  
• Sixth, I still don't think that Obama is a socialist.
  
• Seventh, I still think that Obama is more moderate than you believe. I do think he throws out a lot of ideas, and that the ones that get the focus are the ones that run counter to a certain position (whatever issue is on topic at the time).
  

I don't know if that answers your question(s), but it's the best I can do given my seriously lacking depth of understanding of economics and politics.

On #6, you are correct. Obama is a Statist.

On #6, you are correct. Obama is a Statist.

 

 

Being the idiot that I am, I had to look up "Statist". :lol: For the benefit of other potetntial idiots our there, I offer a cheat to keep you from having to go through the embarrassment of admitting you're an idiot, like I had to:

From Wikipedia:

 

Statism (or etatism) is an economic position that includes a major state role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.^[1][2] It may also refer to a political philosophy that

sovereignty

is vested not in the

people

but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The

fascist

concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline."

[3]

The term is sometimes used to refer to state capitalism or highly regulated market economies with large amounts of government intervention. It is also used to refer to state socialism or co-operative economic systems that use the state, through nationalization, as a means of running industry in the interest of the majority.

Statism reached its highest point in the centrally planned fascist and communist countries, but exists in varying degrees in every country in the world. ^[4] Between the end of World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, many Western European nations ran mixed economies (10-45% public). In Singapore, 60% of the country's GDP comes from government-linked companies. State-run industries are part of the public sector.

Being the idiot that I am, I had to look up "Statist". :lol: For the benefit of other potetntial idiots our there, I offer a cheat to keep you from having to go through the embarrassment of admitting you're an idiot, like I had to:

From Wikipedia:

 

Seems to fit.

Obama is a Statist.

 

It's all semantics... "Socialist-lite" works just fine IMO...

 

Whatever you choose to label it and his policies/ideologies, they have failed spectacularly everywhere and everytime they have been deployed... and it's not just because the people pushing the schemes weren't as smart as the towering intellects we now have in Washington. Punishing success to reward mediocrity is guaranteed to bring misery for all.

It's all semantics... "Socialist-lite" works just fine IMO...

 

Whatever you choose to label it and his policies/ideologies, they have failed spectacularly everywhere and everytime they have been deployed... and it's not just because the people pushing the schemes weren't as smart as the towering intellects we now have in Washington. Punishing success to reward mediocrity is guaranteed to bring misery for all.

You are correct. I was not using "Statist" as a glowing term. Socialist, Communist, Statist.......etc. They all are the same to me. Now, the pointy headed academics can now pile on me about the differences between each. I really do not care about the differences between each "ism". They all restrict the yearning of the indidvidual and the human spirit.

I'll be curious to see how this plays on "Main St" since we hear that these folks are highly upset about the banks paying huge bonuses. We can all argue that the banks met their financial responsibility in paying back the funds. However, sometimes perception is what bites you in the rear end. Do the banks not have PR firms? We know they have attorneys.:clap: No bank exec thought for one minute that maybe they should wait , say, one year before the huge bonuses are paid again? IMO this tax, as unfair as it appears, is a DIRECT result of the banks arrogance. Perception, perception, perception.

I'll be curious to see how this plays on "Main St" since we hear that these folks are highly upset about the banks paying huge bonuses. We can all argue that the banks met their financial responsibility in paying back the funds. However, sometimes perception is what bites you in the rear end. Do the banks not have PR firms? We know they have attorneys.:clap: No bank exec thought for one minute that maybe they should wait , say, one year before the huge bonuses are paid again? IMO this tax, as unfair as it appears, is a DIRECT result of the banks arrogance. Perception, perception, perception.

Am I understanding that "arrogance" is now a valid premise/justification for taxation?

 

God help us!

You are correct. I was not using "Statist" as a glowing term. Socialist, Communist, Statist.......etc. They all are the same to me. Now, the pointy headed academics can now pile on me about the differences between each. I really do not care about the differences between each "ism". They all restrict the yearning of the indidvidual and the human spirit.

I understood and you were correct in labeling this ideology "statist", I just chose your post because it identified the hairsplitting we go through...

 

I also agree that any ideology (regardless of name or label) that restricts ingenuity, dreams and personal industriousness to increase lethargy, mediocrity and waste all in the name of securing political power is despicable.

Disclaimer: I represent banks.

 

From what I've read and heard, President Obama plans on taxing banks that received TARP money and use the tax revenues to cover the likely bail out losses to the fed govt. This really, really bothers me. Many of the big banks that received the TARP money have repaid the money to the govt with interest. The banks satisfied all the conditions imposed at the time the TARP money was loaned to them. Now the govt wants to impose an additional requirement or burden on the banks after the fact: pay a tax to help the govt cover losses on the bail out funds given to AIG and GM.

 

To impose this additional obligation after the fact is wrong, but it really stinks for the banks that were forced to take the TARP funds even though they didn't want or need the TARP money to begin with (the govt was concerned that if only the banks in really bad shape received TARP money, there would be a run on those banks by the depositors, thus dooming those banks. To prevent that, they forced even solid banks to take the TARP money in order to mask which banks the fed govt thought could be fail if they didn't receive TARP money. Which is totally mind blowing when you consider that a major focus of federal securities law is to make sure all material information is disclosed to the public to make sure investors have the info needed to make prudent investment decisions. Seems to me that what the govt was doing was obfuscating the fact that some banks were worse off than others).

 

Any one else bothered by this?

 

Any one else concerned that this may be just another attempt by the govt to protect the automotive union (generally very pro Democrat) at the expense of banks (generally very pro Republican)?

 

Oh and by the way, Barney Frank is upset that some of the banks that received TARP money (and repaid it) are now considering paying what he thinks are excessive bonuses and some believe he is pushing this new tax on banks because he doesn't think it's right for them to do so. Does any one else have a problem with Frank's mentality? What is this country coming to when the govt believes it has the right to determine when bonuses are excessive? I could possibly tolerate govt control of bonuses for those companies still using bail out funds, but in no way on God's green earth should the govt have any say on bonuses paid by companies not in or still in the bail out program. Which is exactly what Frank wants to do from what I've read.

 

I agree with this. It's fair and well said as well. The rationale for this tax seems to be the populist backlash stuff I loath instead of well reasoned policy.

 

If Frank's line of thinking is tolerated, what's next? The govt can decide on how big of a house you can live in? How much money you can earn? How nice of a car you can own?

 

I know a lot of folks were criticized as Chicken Littles when they previously made the charges that the leaders of this administration were socialists. Honestly, I thought some of those folks were a tad over the top myself. But I have to admit that given the recent actions and agenda of the adminstration, I can see now that those folks may not have been foolish in their claims that the sky is falling.

 

Finally, any tax that the banks have to pay will surely be passed down to the banks' customers. Which amounts to another back door tax on middle class Americans, something our President said, while he was campaigning, that he would not do. :madman: While the Democrats said they'd like to prevent the pass down from happening, according to the WSJ the Democrats have privately acknowledged there is no way they can prevent that from happening.

 

I hope folks understand that I am not some far right bomb throwing extremist. While I fervently supported McCain, after the election I said I'd give Obama a chance and if he acted in the moderate way he said he would during his campaign, he could turn out to be a good President because I felt he could pull this country together. Unfortunately, at this time I've seen less and less moderate action and more and more very left leaning action from his administration.

 

I think this is fair too. Though, I don't think there has been any fundamental shift in the way this country and its economy are governed. In fact, very little has changed. And I don't see anything on the radar that would change much. If health reform passes it would be landmark, but it's a fairly modest proposal at this point. It's business as usual in DC as far as I can tell.

Isn't it amazing that the Obamunists are all over anyone in the financial sector who has had the audacity to make money, so much so that they will punatitively tax them and yet in their "health care" plan there is not 1 single word about limiting the amount that greedy trial attorneys can "earn"?

Am I understanding that "arrogance" is now a valid premise/justification for taxation?

 

God help us!

 

You're NOT understanding.

 

The tax seems punitive.

 

My point is that the bankers have zero perspective on public perception.