Obama says "Pay the government back (the bailout money)"
25 replies, posted
[quote]New York (CNNMoney.com) -- The White House is studying ways to ensure that taxpayers who bailed out banks get paid back, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Monday.
Several media reports, citing unnamed officials, said the administration is considering a fee or tax on the financial industry to reclaim government investments in troubled companies.
The law that created the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program empowered the president to ask Congress to recoup money if bailouts were not paid back in full.
TARP dictates that the Office of Management and Budget consider such action five years after TARP went into effect in October 2008 to prevent the federal bailout from adding to the deficit.
When the TARP bill was hastily debated, the provision was key to winning enough support from wary lawmakers to push the bill through Congress.
Gibbs would not discuss how a possible bank fee would fit into Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget, which is set to be released next month. "When it comes back from Kinko's, we'll be able to talk about it," he said.
But Gibbs said it is the president's "goal" to ensure the "money that taxpayers put up will be paid back in full."
While most of the big banks have started paying back their TARP investments, the government still has a lot of money on the line and is likely to for years to come. Last month, the Treasury estimated that the net cost of TARP to taxpayers would be $41.4 billion.
For example, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said last month that the bailouts of the automakers and insurer American International Group (AIG, Fortune 500) would not be paid back in full.
"There is a significant likelihood that we will not be repaid for the full value of our investments in AIG, GM and Chrysler," Geithner told an oversight panel.
Yet, the financial industry tax under discussion could impact the entire financial industry, a prospect the banking industry opposes. With few details available about any proposed fee, it's unclear whether banks would be required to pay for losses incurred by GM and Chrysler.
"Imposing new taxes on top of the increased regulatory costs will weaken the industry, just when the industry is helping lead the economic recovery," said Scott Talbott, chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, a bank lobbying group.
The federal bailout program has always been a controversial topic, but news of executive bonuses now being awarded for banks' stellar performance in 2009 is throwing new fuel on populist anger.
A spokesman for the White House's budget office would not confirm or deny reports about a possible tax on banks.
"There are - and will be - a lot of rumors about what is in our budget - most of them wrong," said budget office spokesman Kenneth Baer. "We are not going to get into the game of ruling in and ruling out rumors about what is in our budget."
[/quote]
Source: [url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/11/news/economy/bank_tax/[/url]
Awh hell Obama, break out the baseball bat and go do it yourself, eh? :toughguy:
Uhh taxpayers aren't going to get any of that money back. The government is going to get that money back and then do something stupid with it. We ain't gonna get any checks in the mail regardless.
How the fuck is that going to be paid back?
[QUOTE=Lankist;19577277]Uhh taxpayers aren't going to get any of that money back. The government is going to get that money back and then do something stupid with it. We ain't gonna get any checks in the mail regardless.[/QUOTE]
I missed you :D
Good, maybe we could at least break even on the last big corporate handout of the Bush administration.
Bailouts are a joke.
Welfare for big business and government owned corporation.
I think the companies that got bailed out should keep the money. I don't think they should be forced to pay it back.
Because the only people who deserve more punishment than the failing companies are the morons who game them the money in the first place. And then we'll see how people react the next time bailouts are brought to the table. Only a fucking idiot would give a failing company that much money and expect to ever see it repaid.
Yes, but the government has control over the bailed-out companies, so there is limited room for negotiation.
I highly doubt congress would draft a contract that wouldn't give them the upper hand in any situation.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;19578030]Yes, but the government has control over the bailed-out companies[/QUOTE]
No they don't. They may have a majority stock but they are legally obligated to allow the companies to operate as they see fit, intervening only when the verge of a collapse that will be a detriment to the public at large. Their power over the companies equates to the ability to throw more money at them. They can't tell them what to make or how to make it, nor can they force them to change anything they do that is already within the law.
I don't think anyone is ever going to be getting any money back.
Expect a $50 dollar check in the mail.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19578077]No they don't. They may have a majority stock but they are legally obligated to allow the companies to operate as they see fit, intervening only when the verge of a collapse that will be a detriment to the public at large. Their power over the companies equates to the ability to throw more money at them. They can't tell them what to make or how to make it, nor can they force them to change anything they do that is already within the law.[/QUOTE]
Guh.
Really?
What the fuck is wrong with America?
[QUOTE=Lankist;19577277]Uhh taxpayers aren't going to get any of that money back. The government is going to get that money back and then do something stupid with it. We ain't gonna get any checks in the mail regardless.[/QUOTE]
Lankist is back!
Once more, I can know what to think without reading the article.
They will just barrow more money from the government or Fed to pay us back lol :V.
We are mixing business with government.
Only instead of proper and fair business they're just throwing money around wildly and then acting surprised at the results of their reckless and generally volatile decisions.
See, it would be okay if the government planned on sending each of our proportional cuts of that 700 billion back to us, with interest. But that won't happen, because the government isn't a fucking bank and they don't know how to handle money. They know less about smart, long-term financial decisions than the failing banks and companies do.
^Goes with this face very well [img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=68624&dateline=1253081644[/img]
ITT:
Lankist gets angry :ohdear:
ya ok
I would be impressed if Obama somehow gets them to fork over the cash.
Except they won't.
I am never going to be impressed.
The government should have exiled the CEOs and installed their own, on the condition they can have the company back when the money gets repaid. We practically bought these companies, we should have had some say in how they were run. Who the fuck buys a majority stake in a business then says "Nah, you idiots can keep running it into the ground, I don't care,"?
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19580412]The government should have exiled the CEOs and installed their own, on the condition they can have the company back when the money gets repaid. We practically bought these companies, we should have had some say in how they were run. Who the fuck buys a majority stake in a business then says "Nah, you idiots can keep running it into the ground, I don't care,"?[/QUOTE]
That's definitely not capitalism.
yes it is. don't be stupid, just because it doesn't fit your narrow definition of capitalism doesn't mean it isn't.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19577917]I think the companies that got bailed out should keep the money. I don't think they should be forced to pay it back.
Because the only people who deserve more punishment than the failing companies are the morons who game them the money in the first place. And then we'll see how people react the next time bailouts are brought to the table. Only a fucking idiot would give a failing company that much money and expect to ever see it repaid.[/QUOTE]
But WE (as the tax payers) weren't the ones to agree with it. Those lawmakers don't care about us anyway, they couldn't give two shits if we don't see any of that money. They still want to raise taxes even more.
So yes, I do think Obama should force them to pay it back.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19580412]The government should have exiled the CEOs and installed their own, on the condition they can have the company back when the money gets repaid. We practically bought these companies, we should have had some say in how they were run. Who the fuck buys a majority stake in a business then says "Nah, you idiots can keep running it into the ground, I don't care,"?[/QUOTE]
that would make glenn beck right
The government isn't going to see a cent of that money.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19577277]Uhh taxpayers aren't going to get any of that money back. The government is going to get that money back and then do something stupid with it. We ain't gonna get any checks in the mail regardless.[/QUOTE]
like financing ridiculously expensive military projects that never come to fruition
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.