Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama told banks Thursday they should pay a new tax to recoup the cost of bailing out foundering firms at the height of the financial crisis. "We want our money back," he said.

In a brief appearance with advisers at the White House, Obama branded the latest round of bank bonuses as "obscene." But he said his goal was to prevent such excesses in the future, not to punish banks for past behavior.

The tax, which would require congressional approval, would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates. "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," Obama said.

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.

The president's tone was emphatic and populist, capitalizing on public antipathy toward Wall Street. With the sharp words, he also tried to deflect some of the growing skepticism aimed at his own economic policies as unemployment stubbornly hovers around 10 percent.

The proposed 0.15 percent 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.

They would have to pay up even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most that did have repaid the infusions.

Obama said big banks had acted irresponsibility, taken reckless risk for short-term profits and plunged into a crisis of their own making. He cast the struggle ahead as one between the finance industry and average people.

"We are already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street, suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair, that by some twisted logic, it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses," Obama said.

He renewed his call for a regulatory overhaul of the industry and scolded bankers for opposing the tighter oversight in legislation moving through Congress.

"What I'd say to these executives is this: Instead of setting a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I'd suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibility," Obama said.

At issue is the net cost of the fund initiated by the Bush administration to help financial institutions get rid of soured assets. The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) has expanded to help auto companies and homeowners.

Insurer American International Group, the largest beneficiary at nearly $70 billion, would have to pay the tax. But General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, whose $66 billion in government loans are not expected to be repaid fully, would not.

Administration officials said financial institutions were both a significant cause of the crisis and chief beneficiaries of the rescue efforts, should bear the brunt of the cost.

...

CID1990 wrote:So let me get this straight.

Banks have to be well capitalized in order to have the solvency to make loans to anyone other than other large banks. When they are capable of making these loans, small and medium businesses are stimulated, which in turn leads to jobs, which in turn leads to added purchasing power on down the ladder.

In order to be well capitalized, banks must turn profits. In order to turn profits, they have to have sound leadership. Sound leadership comes from people who are well versed in management and risk, and must have a lot of experience in the field. Banks that pay handsome sums to attract these people get the best leaders. Banks that are forced to turn their profits over to the government will not be able to attract the types of people who will make the banks successful.

My questions is this:

When it is no longer desirable for smart, educated and knowledgeable bankers to be in charge of banks, who will sit in those seats?

My second question is this:

If stimulus cash was meant to prop banks back up, then why are we penalizing them when they make effective use of the cash? This kind of grandstanding by the President is nothing more than political hay.

What if we are allowing ourselves short term gratification (sticking it to the fat cats) in exchange for long term pain (quadrupled interest rates and zero credit)?

CID1990 wrote:So let me get this straight.

Banks have to be well capitalized in order to have the solvency to make loans to anyone other than other large banks. When they are capable of making these loans, small and medium businesses are stimulated, which in turn leads to jobs, which in turn leads to added purchasing power on down the ladder.

In order to be well capitalized, banks must turn profits. In order to turn profits, they have to have sound leadership. Sound leadership comes from people who are well versed in management and risk, and must have a lot of experience in the field. Banks that pay handsome sums to attract these people get the best leaders. Banks that are forced to turn their profits over to the government will not be able to attract the types of people who will make the banks successful.

My questions is this:

When it is no longer desirable for smart, educated and knowledgeable bankers to be in charge of banks, who will sit in those seats?

My second question is this:

If stimulus cash was meant to prop banks back up, then why are we penalizing them when they make effective use of the cash? This kind of grandstanding by the President is nothing more than political hay.

What if we are allowing ourselves short term gratification (sticking it to the fat cats) in exchange for long term pain (quadrupled interest rates and zero credit)?

CID1990 wrote:So let me get this straight.

Banks have to be well capitalized in order to have the solvency to make loans to anyone other than other large banks. When they are capable of making these loans, small and medium businesses are stimulated, which in turn leads to jobs, which in turn leads to added purchasing power on down the ladder.

In order to be well capitalized, banks must turn profits. In order to turn profits, they have to have sound leadership. Sound leadership comes from people who are well versed in management and risk, and must have a lot of experience in the field. Banks that pay handsome sums to attract these people get the best leaders. Banks that are forced to turn their profits over to the government will not be able to attract the types of people who will make the banks successful.

My questions is this:

When it is no longer desirable for smart, educated and knowledgeable bankers to be in charge of banks, who will sit in those seats?

My second question is this:

If stimulus cash was meant to prop banks back up, then why are we penalizing them when they make effective use of the cash? This kind of grandstanding by the President is nothing more than political hay.

What if we are allowing ourselves short term gratification (sticking it to the fat cats) in exchange for long term pain (quadrupled interest rates and zero credit)?

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:So let me get this straight.

Banks have to be well capitalized in order to have the solvency to make loans to anyone other than other large banks. When they are capable of making these loans, small and medium businesses are stimulated, which in turn leads to jobs, which in turn leads to added purchasing power on down the ladder.

In order to be well capitalized, banks must turn profits. In order to turn profits, they have to have sound leadership. Sound leadership comes from people who are well versed in management and risk, and must have a lot of experience in the field. Banks that pay handsome sums to attract these people get the best leaders. Banks that are forced to turn their profits over to the government will not be able to attract the types of people who will make the banks successful.

My questions is this:

When it is no longer desirable for smart, educated and knowledgeable bankers to be in charge of banks, who will sit in those seats?

My second question is this:

If stimulus cash was meant to prop banks back up, then why are we penalizing them when they make effective use of the cash? This kind of grandstanding by the President is nothing more than political hay.

What if we are allowing ourselves short term gratification (sticking it to the fat cats) in exchange for long term pain (quadrupled interest rates and zero credit)?

Lending is not rocket science. Re-instate Glass-Steagal and let the genius gamblers make their billions without the tax payers assuming the ultimate risk.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CID1990 wrote:So let me get this straight.

Banks have to be well capitalized in order to have the solvency to make loans to anyone other than other large banks. When they are capable of making these loans, small and medium businesses are stimulated, which in turn leads to jobs, which in turn leads to added purchasing power on down the ladder.

In order to be well capitalized, banks must turn profits. In order to turn profits, they have to have sound leadership. Sound leadership comes from people who are well versed in management and risk, and must have a lot of experience in the field. Banks that pay handsome sums to attract these people get the best leaders. Banks that are forced to turn their profits over to the government will not be able to attract the types of people who will make the banks successful.

My questions is this:

When it is no longer desirable for smart, educated and knowledgeable bankers to be in charge of banks, who will sit in those seats?

My second question is this:

If stimulus cash was meant to prop banks back up, then why are we penalizing them when they make effective use of the cash? This kind of grandstanding by the President is nothing more than political hay.

What if we are allowing ourselves short term gratification (sticking it to the fat cats) in exchange for long term pain (quadrupled interest rates and zero credit)?

From what I understand, this measure would raise $112 billion over 12 years, and the biggest banks collectively make $200 billion in pre-tax profit, so I'm not sure why that would translate into quadrupled interest rates.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CID1990 wrote:So let me get this straight.

Banks have to be well capitalized in order to have the solvency to make loans to anyone other than other large banks. When they are capable of making these loans, small and medium businesses are stimulated, which in turn leads to jobs, which in turn leads to added purchasing power on down the ladder.

In order to be well capitalized, banks must turn profits. In order to turn profits, they have to have sound leadership. Sound leadership comes from people who are well versed in management and risk, and must have a lot of experience in the field. Banks that pay handsome sums to attract these people get the best leaders. Banks that are forced to turn their profits over to the government will not be able to attract the types of people who will make the banks successful.

My questions is this:

When it is no longer desirable for smart, educated and knowledgeable bankers to be in charge of banks, who will sit in those seats?

My second question is this:

If stimulus cash was meant to prop banks back up, then why are we penalizing them when they make effective use of the cash? This kind of grandstanding by the President is nothing more than political hay.

What if we are allowing ourselves short term gratification (sticking it to the fat cats) in exchange for long term pain (quadrupled interest rates and zero credit)?

From what I understand, this measure would raise $112 billion over 12 years, and the biggest banks collectively make $200 billion in pre-tax profit, so I'm not sure why that would translate into quadrupled interest rates.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
From what I understand, this measure would raise $112 billion over 12 years, and the biggest banks collectively make $200 billion in pre-tax profit, so I'm not sure why that would translate into quadrupled interest rates.

It's this kind of Orwellian logic that's sending this country right down the shitter.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
From what I understand, this measure would raise $112 billion over 12 years, and the biggest banks collectively make $200 billion in pre-tax profit, so I'm not sure why that would translate into quadrupled interest rates.

It's this kind of Orwellian logic that's sending this country right down the shitter.

Cluck U wrote:Obama thinks the costs aren't going to be passed on to consumers?



Maybe Obama should think about how to control the profits of book writers and politicians.

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:So let me get this straight.

Banks have to be well capitalized in order to have the solvency to make loans to anyone other than other large banks. When they are capable of making these loans, small and medium businesses are stimulated, which in turn leads to jobs, which in turn leads to added purchasing power on down the ladder.

In order to be well capitalized, banks must turn profits. In order to turn profits, they have to have sound leadership. Sound leadership comes from people who are well versed in management and risk, and must have a lot of experience in the field. Banks that pay handsome sums to attract these people get the best leaders. Banks that are forced to turn their profits over to the government will not be able to attract the types of people who will make the banks successful.

My questions is this:

When it is no longer desirable for smart, educated and knowledgeable bankers to be in charge of banks, who will sit in those seats?

My second question is this:

If stimulus cash was meant to prop banks back up, then why are we penalizing them when they make effective use of the cash? This kind of grandstanding by the President is nothing more than political hay.

What if we are allowing ourselves short term gratification (sticking it to the fat cats) in exchange for long term pain (quadrupled interest rates and zero credit)?

Nice logic! Can tell you never ran a business or have people working for you.

OL FU wrote:Whether you like bankers or not, and lately I tend to be one that doesn't, this won't fix a damn thing and is dangerous precendent. But, as I said, more importantly it doesn't fix a thing. I agree with kalm, get the big commercial banks with insured deposits out of investment banking and regulate their business strategies.

AZGrizFan wrote:

OL FU wrote:Whether you like bankers or not, and lately I tend to be one that doesn't, this won't fix a damn thing and is dangerous precendent. But, as I said, more importantly it doesn't fix a thing. I agree with kalm, get the big commercial banks with insured deposits out of investment banking and regulate their business strategies.

Exactly. It's all well and good until YOUR industry gets in the crosshairs.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly. It's all well and good until YOUR industry gets in the crosshairs.

Who gives a flying fuck "Mr. Letemfail"? Sounds like this is better than what you proposed. Now you want leniency?

D1B wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Obama thinks the costs aren't going to be passed on to consumers?



Maybe Obama should think about how to control the profits of book writers and politicians.

Yeah, Einstein, like consumers don't have other choices in banking.

CID1990 wrote:So let me get this straight.

Banks have to be well capitalized in order to have the solvency to make loans to anyone other than other large banks. When they are capable of making these loans, small and medium businesses are stimulated, which in turn leads to jobs, which in turn leads to added purchasing power on down the ladder.

In order to be well capitalized, banks must turn profits. In order to turn profits, they have to have sound leadership. Sound leadership comes from people who are well versed in management and risk, and must have a lot of experience in the field. Banks that pay handsome sums to attract these people get the best leaders. Banks that are forced to turn their profits over to the government will not be able to attract the types of people who will make the banks successful.

Cluck U wrote:

D1B wrote:
Yeah, Einstein, like consumers don't have other choices in banking.

People have choices...and they make bad ones. Bet on it...the banks do. So does almost every business out there.

Do you really think people are going to leave BOA in droves to bank in "Littlebankofthethirdstreetnationaltulipfarmers"?

Get a grip. People get less interest, pay more fees, and they still stick with the big banks. Lemmings. BOA and the rest of the big banks will keep right on rolling and Obama and his ideas will get rolled out of town in a few years.

D1B wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
People have choices...and they make bad ones. Bet on it...the banks do. So does almost every business out there.

Do you really think people are going to leave BOA in droves to bank in "Littlebankofthethirdstreetnationaltulipfarmers"?

Get a grip. People get less interest, pay more fees, and they still stick with the big banks. Lemmings. BOA and the rest of the big banks will keep right on rolling and Obama and his ideas will get rolled out of town in a few years.

Well you are an idiot then. Have you ever heard of credit unions? I don't know bout your community, but credit unions are rapidly taking over and offer competetive or better rates, better service and they ultimately benefit the community you live in.

Also, Newton, all the banks mentioned as targets for the tax saw their stocks rise or not change after the announcement. Most industry analysts describe Obama's proposal as expected (by the banks), manageable and most deserved by the pricks who caused the mess in first place.

Where do get your info?

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:

Well you are an idiot then. Have you ever heard of credit unions? I don't know bout your community, but credit unions are rapidly taking over and offer competetive or better rates, better service and they ultimately benefit the community you live in.

Also, Newton, all the banks mentioned as targets for the tax saw their stocks rise or not change after the announcement. Most industry analysts describe Obama's proposal as expected (by the banks), manageable and most deserved by the pricks who caused the mess in first place.

Where do get your info?

D....as a former banker who's come over from the dark side....a banker who "saw the light" 15 years ago and became a credit union employee, I applaud your enthusiasm, but question your intelligence.

Myth: "credit unions are rapidly taking over." In 1993, the credit union market share of financial institution assets was 6%. At the end of 2007, the credit union market share of financial institution assets was.....you guessed it.....6%.

While you are absolutely correct that credit unions offer better rates, better service and benefit the community in which they serve, it's a known fact that what's MOST important to the American consumer is CONVENIENCE---translation: a branch on every corner. Credit unions do not have, have never had, and never WILL have the kind of brick and mortar locations that the biggest banks (Chase, Citi, B of A, Wells Fargo) have...There's a REASON banks retain their 94% of marketshare.

I'm afraid cluck u is right on the money here. LEMMINGS, all of them.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
D....as a former banker who's come over from the dark side....a banker who "saw the light" 15 years ago and became a credit union employee, I applaud your enthusiasm, but question your intelligence.

Myth: "credit unions are rapidly taking over." In 1993, the credit union market share of financial institution assets was 6%. At the end of 2007, the credit union market share of financial institution assets was.....you guessed it.....6%.

While you are absolutely correct that credit unions offer better rates, better service and benefit the community in which they serve, it's a known fact that what's MOST important to the American consumer is CONVENIENCE---translation: a branch on every corner. Credit unions do not have, have never had, and never WILL have the kind of brick and mortar locations that the biggest banks (Chase, Citi, B of A, Wells Fargo) have...There's a REASON banks retain their 94% of marketshare.

I'm afraid cluck u is right on the money here. LEMMINGS, all of them.

In my community, there are credit unions popping up all over the place. My ex worked for Credit Union 1 in Alaska and at the time it was buiding a branch a branch ever few months.

I report on what I see and I'll defer to your inside knowledge of the industry, but you are a fucking liar, so I will verify your numbers.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
In my community, there are credit unions popping up all over the place. My ex worked for Credit Union 1 in Alaska and at the time it was buiding a branch a branch ever few months.

I report on what I see and I'll defer to your inside knowledge of the industry, but you are a **** liar, so I will verify your numbers.

When a bank decides to expand, it builds two HUNDRED branches. Not two. That's the difference, D.

And I love you too, honey.