About This Blog
This L.A. Times writer describes Obama's announcement of imposing fees on banks to recoup TARP losses as him channeling "his inner populist".
And here I was thinking Obama wanted to recoup the $117 billion in lost TARP monies....
President Obama channeled his inner populist this morning, announcing that he wants to impose a fee on banks to help recover taxpayer funds used to rescue Wall Street.
In announcing the new fees, Obama was harsh to the institutions whose greed and speculation drove the economy downhill and required billions of dollars of taxpayer aid. Much of the money has been repaid, but the administration estimates that more than $117 billion will be lost and it hopes to recover those funds from the new fee over 10 years.
Today's Beacon included an AP piece on this topic, and it's very conservative friendly....
Obama proposed a 10-year, $90 billion tax on the largest financial institutions Thursday, saying he wanted the money to back any shortfall in the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program launched to bail out foundering firms at the height of the financial crisis.
Obama's haves-versus-have-nots message was as explicit as any political message he has delivered as president.
Really? Placing responsibility for the worst financial collapse since the 30's where it belongs....on the financial institutions who created the collapse.....is a "haves-versus-have-nots message." Really?
The AP's proof that Obama's fee on financial institutions is really only "haves-versus-have-nots" populist rhetoric is this from Obama....
''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,'' he declared. ''We want our money back.''
How is that a "haves-versus-have-nots message?"
What of Republican reaction, so far, to Obama's bank-fee announcement?
The Einstein-like RNC Chairman, Michael Steele....says imposing a fee on three to four dozen huge banking institutions is a tax on the American people......
“President Obama’s plans to institute a ‘financial crisis responsibility fee’ to recoup the bailout funds from major banks is nothing more than another tax on the American public. The fact is this money has already been paid back by the banks and this punitive tax will hurt Americans’ savings and discourage job creation at the worse of economic times. However, it will fatten the wallets of Democrats on Capitol Hill by $90 billion over the next ten years."
So few sentences.....so many errors.
Other Republicans are choosing to fearmonger and defend the banksters....
GOP Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, called the plan a ''job-killing initiative that will further cripple the economy by increasing fees passed on to consumers and small businesses, while reducing consumer credit.''
If there's one thing Republicans have first hand knowledge about it's "job-killing", huh? What is it now....7 million lost jobs as a result of Republican leadership? No matter what the tax on the wealthy and powerful might be....conservatives always tell us that it's a tax on all of us. That is how they always defend the most powerful and the wealthiest in America.
However, it will be interesting to see how GOP'ers and those mighty fiscal-hawks play out their hand in this bank-fee issue.
“While the GOP has muddied the waters on financial reform, the Wall Street fee is a bright line: either you are on the side of making taxpayers whole or you want to protect outsized profits at the big Wall Street banks,” the official said. “If the GOP lines up with Goldman and company on the fee, it'll make it easier for Dems to demonstrate that they are protecting the ‘fat cats’ and opposing real change to Wall Street.”
The GOP always, in essence, "lines up with Goldman." The GOP always opposes "real change to Wall Street".....unless of course, that "real change" is for the exclusive benefit of Wall Street,....like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.....then GOP'ers are for it.
The Gramm-Leach Bliley Act was "real change". Not only was the deregulating Act designed for the benefit of wealthy and powerful bankster folks....but it led directly to the near depression we've been enjoying the last 2 years.
Will the tone-deaf, galactically-dumb, and perennially-blind Republicans stand, once more, on the side of a handful of the richest and most powerful....and against the many, who have suffered the most in a deep recession those same rich and powerful created?