Here
and
Now

opinions

Obama playing banks against taxpayers

13 Comments
By Jim Kuhnhenn

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

13 Comments
Login to comment

I need to read up on this on a more credible publication but...

Banks that have already paid the loans back or did not take them in the first place have to pay? This just sounds wrong!

Let's also not forget that people pay tax on bonuses already and these big payouts are for a very small minority of bank employees...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As mentioned in the article, the companies that aren't likely to pay back the loans anytime soon (e.g. GM and Chrysler), aren't going to get hit with the tax. Of course, now that the unions have a big chunk of two of the "Big Three" (at the expense of the original creditors), there's no chance that this administration is going to cross them, particularly since this next election cycle is going to be very tough on their political party. Of course the consumer/taxpayer is going to be the one ultimately footing the bill.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Banks that have already paid the loans back or did not take them in the first place have to pay? This just sounds wrong!

If I am correct the same companies who borrowed money didn't have to pay interest on the money they borrowed. This was under the assumption they would start lending to the consumers and stimulate the economy. They haven't done any of that some companies like Credit card lenders raised their rates. They basically horded all this money then stated record profits this year. Profits in the same amounts as the money they borrowed from the government. That means the managers of these companies met the terms of their contracts which entitle them to a bonus this year. They inflated their books to look good for investors and get bonuses while screwing the public.

I think this tax is just a way of making them pay interest on the money they borrowed. They screwed the public twice. First when they created this mess and second when they came up with a scheme to get out of it. If they didn't borrow then they shouldn't have to pay.

If it is required for all then I say connect it to lending.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Remember the same folks receiving bonuses were the same ones going to Congress in their private jets asking for bailouts!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Remember the same folks receiving bonuses were the same ones going to Congress in their private jets asking for bailouts!

You forgot to add... So lets soak em. Lets go in and clean out their banks accounts and college funds, and give it to the folks who aren't making money, who are either unemployed, or making minimum wages. Soak the rich, give to the poor!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Molenir

So lets soak em. Lets go in and clean out their banks accounts and college >funds, and give it to the folks who aren't making money, who are either >unemployed, or making minimum wages.

Name one rich person this happened to? I can name a dozen people that Molenir said "who aren't making money, who are either unemployed, or making minimum wages" who did lose everything because of "the same folks receiving bonuses were the same ones going to Congress in their private jets asking for bailouts." Once again you are living in La La Land. You must work for JT to say incorrect things to stir up debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both auto-manufacturing and finance executives travel via private jet... as do certain union bosses (to the tune of $1.8 million in 2006 for one machinist union). Conspicuous consumption is not warrant for financial punishment, but neither should it warrant special treatment. They simply should not have been bailed out in the first place. They should have been liquidated and parted out. "Too big to fail" really means "too big to adapt." Even the biggest fish in the sea die eventually and their carcasses feed the fish that are leaner and meaner. Government intervention disturbs the financial cycle by keeping institutions alive whose time has passed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Name one rich person this happened to?

Please note, my post referred to this attitude. This greed that wants to take from those who have earned it, and give to those who haven't. The Robin Hood theme may play to the masses, but it doesn't change the fact that you're a thief, and stealing from someone else. This kind of thing really bothers me. It may be the popular thing, to claim that they should pay a higher percentage in taxes because they can afford to, that they shouldn't get bonuses, ever. Regardless of how well, or poorly the company performs, and how well they perform for the company. But it doesn't make it right. It just means its popular.

I agree with oldgeezer on the subject. Conspicuous consumption is not warrant for financial punishment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If I am correct the same companies who borrowed money didn't have to pay interest on the money they borrowed."

And where did you get this piece of information? One of the banks I bank with had borrowed TARP money in the form of preferred stock with a rate of 5% and this rate goes up gradually and the money will have to be paid back. At the same time, the bank is being pressured to modify some of their residential mortgages to interest rates of below 5% to allow people who cannot afford a house to own a house. I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to realize that paying 5% for the money and then lending that money out at less than 5% is a formula for failure. I am not sure if the U.S. governemnt has an overall game plan and knows what it is doing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems pretty obvious that there is a government propaganda campaign here to conflate the TARP program with the bank bailout in the publics' minds. The TARP money is a very small percent of the total that banks have received, and that is a point that this article also neglects to mention. By hiding the true extent of the bailout and sending people off on blind alleys about whether or not they should have to pay the tax if they already paid back their TARP money, or never wanted it in the first place, they achieve three objectives. They take off some of the "populist" pressure ("see look, we are doing something, we are getting the TARP money back - Whoopee!!!), they protect the interests of the people who are really calling the shots (the banking oligarchy), and they hide the true level of the disaster from the public, and avoid (delay?) the panic that would come if people realized just how bad things really are and how badly they have been taken.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Molenir,

Please note, my post referred to this attitude. This greed that wants to >take from those who have earned it, and give to those who haven't. The >Robin Hood theme may play to the masses, but it doesn't change the fact >that you're a thief, and stealing from someone else. This kind of thing >really bothers me.

In your attempt to make the poor man the bad guy in this situation. You failed to mention those same rich people deceived many poor people to acquire that money you believe they are entitled to keep. So you think they should keep it because they cheated "fair and square?"

The biggest portion of that pot, roughly $85 billion, went to AIG as the government took a near 80% stake in the insurance company. A week after receiving that money, AIG executives went on retreat to the price tag of $440 million. Although AIG denied these executives were associated to their CDS backed products, the perception was bad enough. Maryland congressman Cummings accurately pegged American discontent, “They were getting their manicures, their pedicures, massages, their facials while the American people were paying their bills.” To add insult to injury, Goldman Sachs set aside billions of dollars for executive salaries and bonuses despite receiving billions of bailout money from the federal government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The easiest and most reliable to get in and stay in office is to promise to give to people for nothing what they aren't able or aren't willing to earn for themselves.

Few politicians ever got elected by promising the common man an opportunity to actually take a risk and make something of himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama is dead right. Greedy bankers should be taxed at a rate of 90%. They are the vermin of society. Personally I beleive that the banks should not have been bailerd out with public money. If they have the cash to give themselves big bonuses, then the bonuses should be taken from them and they should be forced to pay back all the monies loaned to them by the taxpayers to bail them out. These people make money from ordinary, hard-working people who are currently feeling pain. Its time these greedy bankers, who caused the problems to begin with, were also made to feel some pain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites