Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anything which tries to rein in the mega-banks can't be all bad.
Right now, they get to play fast and loose with their depositor's money, take the most outrageous risks in the pursuit of ever higher profits and then, when it comes time to pay the piper, claim they're "too large to fail" and tap the taxpayers to make up their loses.
That SHOULD make you mad at them, not at the President who's trying to prevent it happening again. (for the third time in my lifetime)
Is this good or bad? Please explain? What is the purpose?
He's doing it to boost his plummeting poll ratings and that's about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Anything which tries to rein in the mega-banks can't be all bad.
Right now, they get to play fast and loose with their depositor's money, take the most outrageous risks in the pursuit of ever higher profits and then, when it comes time to pay the piper, claim they're "too large to fail" and tap the taxpayers to make up their loses.
That SHOULD make you mad at them, not at the President who's trying to prevent it happening again. (for the third time in my lifetime)
I agree with the premise of your post, but slapping the banks with a tax does NOTHING to prevent them from gambling with consumer deposits in the future. What exactly is the president doing to prevent the banks from partaking in these outrageous risks with our money? Better yet, why doesn't he apply these same taxes to Fannie and Freddie. They are even worse than the big evil banks on Wall Street.
He must have a target for his divisive, partisan politics. He's done it time and again, on every issue...he must have someone to demonize.
He thinks by targeting the banks and highlighting their greedy, evil ways, it will take the spotlight off his numerous failures.
He forced some, but not all banks to take the bailout money, had an agreement with them and now he wants to change the rules in the middle of the game.
You can thank him for the last three day disaster in the Dow.
Is is part of the "class warfare" tactics that the far left uses ad nauseum. For the most part the banks have paid back the TARP loans, and in doing so, did it with paid interest included. Therefore, the government made money on the banks Obama now wants to further vilify by imposing regulatory fees/taxes upon. Who will really pay for this? The consumer. Therefore it is just more smoke and mirrors behind the radical Socialist agenda of "re-distributing wealth" and destroying the "white establishment"; as are the teachings of Saul Alinksy.
Were this about charging a "responsibility fine", as Obama has stated, he would fine those who have not paid back their bailouts, namely AIG, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. But no, for their irresponsibility Obama has instructed the FED to give Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac an unlimited line of credit instead.
Just another example of how this administration uses its thuggish ways against private industry to collect $$ for government programs.
Is this good or bad? Please explain? What is the purpose?
True or False....
1. They got all the obamamoney needed for wealth redistribution
2. Only govt. is allowed to do as the banks have
3. It's not really good news
4. The purpose....is to try a new form of bank robbery and see if the FBI
even notices.
Answer correctly......there's a test next week
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.