Obama tells banks: 'We want our money back'

lol, they're trying to make it politically unfeasable for the banks to pass the costs on to their consumers. Ain't gonna happen though of course. Have to admit, after reading this article, I'm starting to get confused. Did we elect Obama, or Chavez as President. This sounds a lot like something the latter would do. Whats amusing is, this is pretty much all just spin. Many of the banks have already paid back the government the money they were "lent". So this is nothing more then a giant money grab by Obama. An attempt to, raid the piggy bank. Spun with class warfare and socialist arguements. Pathetic really, but then you can't really expect anything else from Obama.

When banks enjoy large profits in the wake of the economic chaos they created, I say they should take a part of their slice from the huge bonus pie and put it into action to alleviate the ones who kept most of the big nstitutions out of the grave. If there was no mal action on the part of the banks and Obama made this demand then yo might have an argument. To reward the ones who led the economy to the brink of failure deserve nothing. It's ludicrous that most still hold their positions.

Banks argue that the huge bonuses are necessary to retain top talent. After what they were responsible for they should all get pink slips, not rewards. And how do the banks acheive paying out these bonuses? By bending over their own customers and I think you can figure out the rest..

That's how they pass thngs onto consumers.

That's how they pass thngs onto consumers.

And the government way of no accountability and just printing more money is preferable right. Don't worry though, they'll just raise taxes, thats how THEY pass things on to consumers.

“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,”

BINGO. But don't expect someone like Molenir to understand; he simply draws unrelated comparisons to the scary RED MENACE he's still afraid will take over, and he seems to forget that all these big banks seem to be able to afford MASSIVE bonuses while begging for bailouts from bush to help save them from going under. But then, 'you really can't expect anything else from Molenir'.

Good on Obama, and he'll score back some of the points he's lost of late. People are rightly furious about what the banks are doing, and it's insane that they think the public should bear the burden of paying for the banks' mistakes.

"He cast the struggle ahead as one between the finance industry and average people"

Don't a lot of average people work in the finance industry?

"Banks did not hide their objections."

No doubt.

I've got no issue with the government raising taxes, as long as I have enough to live decently and comfortably. As much as you don't like it Molenir, taxes help keep our country stable. If you haven't noticed it was taxes that bailed out the banks, and is currently assisting the US motor companies, as well as paying down the national debt, public schooling, college/university assitance, unemployment/social security benefits etc. More money being printed only makes the value of the US dollar drop internationally, thats why its reasonable to tell the banks that are turning a profit but haven't paid back to get on with it as with all the other companies that have dipped their fingers into the federal reserves paid for by the taxpayers.

sarge: "Don't a lot of average people work in the finance industry?"

We're not talking about quality of character or grades, sarge, we're talking about numbers (population), so no.

"No doubt."

You sound like you think it's a GOOD thing the banks objected. Do you agree with their practices? or what Obama is doing?

Molenir: And the government way of no accountability and just printing more money is preferable right. Don't worry though, they'll just raise taxes, thats how THEY pass things on to consumers.

We are not really customers of the government. The question one has to ask oneself is: as a citizen, did I support the big government expenditures? I can tell you that I did not, but then, I have almost no prospect of paying U.S. taxes ever again as a resident of Japan. But anyone who did support things like the bailouts and the invasions simply has no leg to stand on to complain about higher federal taxes.

That said, the banks should be paying back what they borrowed, plus interest. The payback should have been laid down clearly when it was given. But I am not about to allow a lack of paperwork to allow people to keep what isn't theirs especially considering how they got their hands on it and what they have done with it.

Was just reading in the FT that Goldman's bonus pool this year is bigger than NASA's annual budget. Also interesting that the 3 winners of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine got a mere $1.43 million to split between them for a lifetime of achievement. The rewards are totally out of whack given what these people provide to society.

The TARP money is just the tip of the iceberg. Basically all US big bank "profits" come from government money and subsidies, and if they have to pay 90 billion back to keep the taps open, then that is a bargain and they should shut up and take it. Let the government put on a little show to calm things down and make it look like they are doing something, and then they can get on with what they do best, which is of course taking money out of Molenir's, Sarge's and every other American's pocket.

“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,”

So the fact that most of the affected banks have either paid all the "loans" back already, or never had any loans to begin with, doesn't particularly matter to you right? All that matters is if they're in the shape to afford "massive" bonuses, then they should be able to give a bit more to the government. Oh, and of course they shouldn't dare raise their own rates in response to the governments massive tax increase right. Way to pull out the old socialism/class warfare envy arguments. I can already see you turning green Smith.

It just offends me, here Obama is saying "We want our Money back!" What money? They've already either paid the money, or didn't borrow any. He sounds like a Yak thug. But then I really don't expect better from him anyway.

Also interesting that the 3 winners of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine got a mere $1.43 million to split between them for a lifetime of achievement. The rewards are totally out of whack given what these people provide to society.

That has to be one of the best comments I have ever read on JT. Indeed, who offers the greater benefit to society, somebody like Florey, Fleming or Salk, or somebody like the faceless minions who work on Wall Street?

If Molenir would lend me all his money at 0% interest I would happily lend it back to him at 4%, book my profits and pay myself a nice fat bonus. And when he clues in that that is not really a very good deal for him and decides he wants some of his money back, well he can't have it because that would be class warfare and he is just a socialist Yak thug.

Molenir: "So the fact that most of the affected banks have either paid all the "loans" back already,"

162 billion of more than 200 billion has been paid back; that doesn't mean their done paying, and still must pay back the rest. That's not 'paid back already', my friend.

Sure thing. How much should these banks pay? How much should the banks pay that didn't get any money? And how much should the fed pay? Ah, we aren't supposed to ask those question right. How about banks that were forced to accept money at gunpoint. They should absolutely have to repay the "loans" with exorbitant interest right. Thats really what this is after all. Nothing more then an extortion scheme, writ large, using "repayment" as its excuse, but really having its foundation in class warfare.

If Molenir would lend me all his money at 0% interest I would happily lend it back to him at 4%, book my profits and pay myself a nice fat bonus.

Not the way it works. I lend you all my money, then force you to repay me, and then once you've repaid, I'll decide how much money you're allowed to make, how big the bonuses you pay to you're employees will be. Oh, and of course you have to keep paying more then you borrowed. That sounds like a good plan right. Well, good for me, not so good for you. Thats really what this is about.

Papers all say majority of Americans would vote against Mr Obama. I reckon it's over.

Molenir- Sure thing. How much should these banks pay?

What is the going rate? How much time has elapsed?

How much should the banks pay that didn't get any money?

Nothing.

And how much should the fed pay?

Did they borrow?

Ah, we aren't supposed to ask those question right.

You might want to ask those questions and wait for a response before saying such a thing. No one objects to your questions. Its the assumptions you lace them with that we object to.

How about banks that were forced to accept money at gunpoint.

If I accepted money at gunpoint I would not spend it. I would put it in a box so I could give it back easily. Anyone actually forced to take money should not pay any interest. However, I think your "gunpoint" characterization is pretty over the top. My impression is that it was dire need that forced the borrowing, not government pressure.

They should absolutely have to repay the "loans" with exorbitant interest right.

Why does it have to be "exorbitant"? To give creedence to your red scare? I don't think anyone expects it to be exorbitant.

Thats really what this is after all. Nothing more then an extortion scheme, writ large, using "repayment" as its excuse, but really having its foundation in class warfare.

No. I was against that and all bailouts. But this kind of mischaracterization does not help us.

You gotta love the Republicans: when bush decided to give a boatload of government cash to these banks without any steps to see how they use it, you get ZERO complaints from them. When Obama makes up a similar stimulus plan, but to boost the economy in general, you get nothing but whining. When Obama says he wants some of the stimulus back, you get nothing but whining. I think we pretty much all know that it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, the Republicans will whine and cry foul (to the point of extreme hypcrisy and retorts like, 'that was then, this is now', or, 'don't bring up the past!') anytime Obama does anything. Even though this will help them out for the most part, they are against it.

Bang on, mr smithinjapan. 2 wrongs make a right!

Molenir: "Not the way it works."

Well, in the minds of SOME, anyway.

"I lend you all my money, then force you to repay me,"

As opposed to.... what? a 'loan' you DON'T repay?

"and then once you've repaid,"

Do tell us which banks have repaid in full, my friend, since you keep suggesting they have.

"I'll decide how much money you're allowed to make, how big the bonuses you pay to you're employees will be."

That's being decided because they have yet to repay in full, if they've begun at all. In the case of GM (not a bank, I know, these decisions were part and parcel with the agreement to bail them out, which they accepted). Once it was clear bush never bothered to ask the banks to be accountable for the money they mysteriously lost later, the Obama government is now holding them accountable and making sure they pay the remainder back. In the meantime, it is POINTING OUT that it's irresponsible to give extremely large bonuses to execs when claim that you are drowning and need financial assistance. It's.... not rocket science to see there's a problem with the banks' way of handling things.

"Oh, and of course you have to keep paying more then you borrowed."

You mean interest for a loan not yet repaid? IMAGINE! Show me a BANK, on the other hand, that will give me a handout for a house and won't 'force' me to repay them and will say I don't need to pay interest... oh, and if I don't repay they won't foreclose or impose penalties.

"That sounds like a good plan right."

Of COURSE it's a good plan!

"Well, good for me, not so good for you. Thats really what this is about."

Again you miss the point, but no surprise; this has been about "what's good for the BANKS and bad for the people", not the other way around. The government wants the money that hasn't been repaid BACK!

Tough one for you, I know... but we all know that you're really just angry this is Obama doing it. If it were bush, you'd be saying you're 100% for it and bush is a genius, bla bla.

What you guys seem to be missing here, is that this is being sought for all banks of a certain size, whether or not they "borrowed" money or not. Some banks were forced to accept money, they having accepted it, under protest, immediately paid it back, as soon as they could. They're also under this. Only a few banks still owe the government money. But it doesn't matter. This is not about money owed the government. Nor about interest. It has nothing to do with that at all. All banks of a certain size will be penalized.

Smith, you're post is nonsense. If you know anything about what Obama has done, all your post represents, is spin. Leftwing socialist propaganda having no relation to reality. First, Republicans were furious at Tarp. Guess you missed that. The Obama stimulus was a failure, even most Obama supporters now admit this. The bank money is totally separate from the stimulus. And most of it has already been repaid. Most of what Obama has done, has helped no one, except a very few. It has had an overall negative effect, that as time goes on will act even more as an anchor to the economy. Throw in Obamas Cap and Tax scheme, and his health care idiocy, and its almost impossible to look and see 1 single good thing that Obama has gotten right.

Molenir: "Not the way it works."

Actually that is exactly how it works. The Fed lends money to Wall Street at essentially zero interest, and that money is used to buy treasury bonds at around 4%. It is banking that could be done by a monkey and is a direct gift from the American public to Wall Street, to go along with all the other gifts they have been given (ie. the AIG money, the changes in accounting rules, the dud loans and derivatives the Fed has taken off their hands at inflated prices, etc.). The TARP money is a sideshow to the total picture. But if Americans care more about political games than the fact they are getting robbed, fair enough, it's their money and they can lose it if they want to.

The proposed 0.15% 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.

It's not the little banks that will be paying this tax. It's just the ones that got our help to survive. Then fill their pockets with our money. < :-)

Banks argue that the huge bonuses are necessary to retain top talent.

And studies apparently show* almost zero correlation between executive pay levels and company stock performance.

*Admittedly this is hearsay - I haven't read the studies myself

Molenir does have a good point that this is a general tax that will be placed on all banks. This is information straight from the article. Thank you Molenir for pointing it out. I should have paid more attention. I don't like that idea either. I would prefer a direct accounting for where the money went, and have only those recepients pay.

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.

They make that argument all they want, but that is exactly what will happen and it will be yet another 'hidden tax' on all of us. As the banks and financial institutions pass that extra tax cost on to us through higher ATM and credit card fees or whatever else they can jack up to offset this in the end.

sailwind: They make that argument all they want, but that is exactly what will happen

Unless thwarted, yes it will happen. But then, the administration might thwart it.

Unless thwarted, yes it will happen. But then, the administration might thwart it.

I'm not real comfortable with a Government dictating to a private company what they should pay thier people. I understand the anger directed toward the financial sector as far as bonuses, but will it actually stop there at the financial sector, there are tons of other businesses that benefit from Uncle Sam's largesse outside of TARP funds and they pay their execs pretty handsomely also. I can see soon that this Administration will go gunning for them in the future also by taxing the hell out of them and killing private job creation to just feed big government instead. Your right the administration can thwart it by force but that is exactly what scares me the most and the road that it leads down for the future.

I'm an Obama supporter and I am confused. Obama says this and I think it's good. But why did he pick Geithner?

I'm not real comfortable with a Government dictating to a private company what they should pay thier people.

Are you also against minimum wage laws?

Molenir: "Leftwing socialist propaganda having no relation to reality."

That says it all! HAhaha... thanks for the laugh. LOOK OUT! THE RED MENACE! You still think 'social systems' equals 'Communism'? How about the word 'society'? Man how you make me laugh.

I know that, and as I said in my posts it was part of BUSH'S BAILOUT PACKAGE, which many on here defended, particularly in regards to GM. Come on, do read my comments before trying to spin them (and then accuse me of spinning things). Then when Obama planned a stimulus package (I never said for the banks), even those who supported bush's began to decry Obama's, simply because it was Obama, and that's it and that's all.

"...and his health care idiocy..."

There's the red menace again. RUN! I know, I know... wanting your country-men cared for instead of 45 million + out in the cold is simple Socialism, eh?

Where I disagree with Obama, and have for bush since he began, is in military budget, for which they could afford free healthcare -- hell, even PAY people to get sick! -- for everyone for probably a fraction of the cost. But that's another story.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me all the banks that have paid back the loans in full, since more than half of your rants talk about them being penalized despite having 'paid back the loans'. But nah... Just call it bad because Obama's doing it.

We need to give the crooks back the money they stole from us ---> makes perfect sense to me.

The problem is that people think of "the banking industry" as some kind of separate entity that can somehow be taxed or punished in some kind of vacuum. In all reality, this proposal is just going to raise my interest rates and banking fees. Whoopie. I guess I'm part of the banking industry now.

Either that or the banks won't pass along the fees and will just trim jobs to offset the losses. Whoopie. A janitor at Bank of America just lost his job.

Or they actually will cut bonuses and lose talent. Whoopoe. My bank just had a brain drain.

Stop playing games. Just tax the wealthy and be done with it.

"Stop playing games. Just tax the wealthy and be done with it."

Amen.

"Stop playing games. Just tax the wealthy and be done with it."

Amen.

Why?

"Why?"

Tax-cuts for the rich and trickle-down is a phallacy.

Those that are stinking should be made to pay their share.

I know this doesn't help your Obama hating agenda, perhaps I should mention Mr Bush to get you animated?

Hey Obama, it is not your money you were doling out and now want back. It is the taxpayers money, or in case of the US financial situation the Chinese money that you borrowed, putting a burden on future taxpayers.

"Hey Obama, it is not your money you were doling out and now want back. It is the taxpayers money"

Uhm, despite the obvious being that Obama's a tax-payer, the article quotes him saying "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".

Frankly, I'd have thought not one single person would be able to have a problem with this stance, but apparently hatred of Obama removes all notion of reason for some.

Just tax the wealthy and be done with it.

A very sensible solution. Unfortunately, the rich like to skew the conversation by talking about dollar amounts instead of percentage earned when they talk about how much taxes they pay and a lot of suckers buy into the idea that these poor (as in kawai so) people have to pay so much when in fact it's a smaller percentage than what the rest of us pay.

(That was my run-on sentence for the day)

Taka

Frankly, I'd have thought not one single person would be able to have a problem with this stance, but apparently hatred of Obama removes all notion of reason for some.

Frankly, I'm surprised anyone at all is ok with this. These banks have already repaid all the money that was loaned them. Some of the targeted banks didn't accept money at all. Would be like insisting you pay a bill you don't owe. Hmm, Madverts, you ok paying bills you don't owe?

All this is, is a tax, one that will be passed along to the taxpayers. Meaning, Obama despite his pledge not to raise taxes, is in fact doing precisely that. Just one of the many places we see Obama = Liar.

Curses, the title got me all excited at the prospect of the U.S completely getting out of the banks, short selling the stocks they had bought to get some kind of return, and letting the ponderous giants finally buckle and die. Instead its just another tax that'll get passed down to everybody with a loan out. On top of that it looks like they're also charging banks that never even took TARP money, banks that should have been praised for being able to keep their heads above water. Pfft...

There are only two points here that matter. One, TARP does not equal the banking bailout. It is in fact just a small percentage of the money handed out to the banking system to keep it solvent, although for PR purposes it suits the government and banks to pretend that TARP = Bailout. "We paid it back, we didn't want it" doesn't matter because they still kept all the rest. Two, and this is very simple, there are no profits behind the bonuses. The amount of money banks made from their operations is less than the amount of wealth transfered from the American people, through the government, to the financial sector. The math is simple, the bonuses and the banks themselves are frauds, but like I said before, keep handing over your money if it keeps you happy. Remember to keep your hands in the air at all times though.

"Hmm, Madverts, you ok paying bills you don't owe?"

Having a small business, that's what I do on a daily basis. I pay fat people to sit at home and toss it off smoking weed all day so you're barking up the wrong tree mate!

"All this is, is a tax, one that will be passed along to the taxpayers"

Not all the banks received payputs so move your funds to one that didn't if this bothers you so. A message needs to be sent to banks that they are not actually doing us a favour and they only exist because of our bloody money!

Yeah! Tell them Obama. Just make sure they don't actually give it back. I mean, can't step on the feet of the powerful pillars of capitalism.