Tax the rich
In this case, I agree.
Simply put, while Obama is tapping into the public's anger at the massive bank profits to cover his own spending spree, he is absolutely correct in pointing the finger at them.
It is true that the government itself is responsible for the seeds of the financial crisis: enforcing "affordable housing for all" and then essentially guaranteeing foolish lending.... But the banks took this misstep too far. They: (1) bought into it as being free, and riskless money at its core; (2) figured out how to leverage the risks to make larger profits; (3) rewarded those who took the risks on the bank balance sheets lavishly; (4) sought to pawn off as "safe investments" the notion that the property market was a one way affair (which given cheap money seems reasonable on its face); and (5) cynically took the government bailout, turned around and started doing it all over again. Then they had the bad taste to go to the trough for record payouts while the VAST majority of the country is in financial ruins ... ruins that the banks are overwhelmingly responsible for.
So Obama threatens to tax them. Jamie Dimon from Morgan states that tax anyone as a punishment "is a bad idea." You know, Jamie, as a whole I agree. But in your case, I'd like to see you taking the bus to work -- if you had a job at all.
Mr. Dimon as well as his co-conspirators at Goldman, Barlcays, HSBC, BoA, Morgan Stanley just don't "get" it. They created this mess, provked the government into guaranteeing trillions (net effect) of debt that the banks created -- or should have known better than to create -- and then see themselves as victims of political opportunism. In earlier days they would have been lynched by a populist mob. The cost to every one of us taxpayers is massive: each of us and our children are on the hook for the lost trillions ... the banks won't lend (all of a sudden they have a conscience about this???) and real unemployment is over 17%.
The banks need to pay each and every one of us back for their greed and hubris until we are made whole. Yes, Barney Frwank may have been the primary government motivator in "forcing you" to make bad loans ... but you knew they were bad loans, you sold those bad loans as "safe investments" to the public and then -- this is the killer -- you bet against those very same investments using such things as credit default swaps. As all the shit came tumbling down, and you got caught with your fingers in the pie (liberal use and absue of metaphors) you came pleading for help ... to us, the taxpayers. So we went further into debt, handing you our savings, with which you promptly went out and bought a Ferrari. And somehow you want us to feel bad for you.
The Republicans are, technically, correct about the abuse of government power to target a tax at one specific revenue producing industry -- to punish the few. But you know? This fiscal conservative would like to see their bonuses capped at 100% of salary for the next 10 years, salaries capped at CPI increases or decreases, and ROI over 15% returned to the government to fund education and pay down bailout spending (maybe 50/50). If the bankers don't like that, they can go out and find other jobs, there are plenty of people that will be willing to take their places.
AND, before you cretins at a certain nameless bank go saying that you didn't need the bailout, so why should you be punished ... I'd like to see a Congressional inquiry examine just how much you DID sell off to others, how much of the AIG money you did get (which is taxpayer money) ... the word on the street is $60 billion and that does not appear directly as a TARP handout. Rumor also has it that your institution was the LARGEST pruveyor of toxic junk over the 5 years prior to the crisis --only you had the good sense to offload it to others, whereas the now-defunct and bailed out institutions kept too much on their own balance sheets. How about tallying up all that bad paper (from everyone) and saying you can have your bonuses back when that is paid off?
Simply put, while Obama is tapping into the public's anger at the massive bank profits to cover his own spending spree, he is absolutely correct in pointing the finger at them.
It is true that the government itself is responsible for the seeds of the financial crisis: enforcing "affordable housing for all" and then essentially guaranteeing foolish lending.... But the banks took this misstep too far. They: (1) bought into it as being free, and riskless money at its core; (2) figured out how to leverage the risks to make larger profits; (3) rewarded those who took the risks on the bank balance sheets lavishly; (4) sought to pawn off as "safe investments" the notion that the property market was a one way affair (which given cheap money seems reasonable on its face); and (5) cynically took the government bailout, turned around and started doing it all over again. Then they had the bad taste to go to the trough for record payouts while the VAST majority of the country is in financial ruins ... ruins that the banks are overwhelmingly responsible for.
So Obama threatens to tax them. Jamie Dimon from Morgan states that tax anyone as a punishment "is a bad idea." You know, Jamie, as a whole I agree. But in your case, I'd like to see you taking the bus to work -- if you had a job at all.
Mr. Dimon as well as his co-conspirators at Goldman, Barlcays, HSBC, BoA, Morgan Stanley just don't "get" it. They created this mess, provked the government into guaranteeing trillions (net effect) of debt that the banks created -- or should have known better than to create -- and then see themselves as victims of political opportunism. In earlier days they would have been lynched by a populist mob. The cost to every one of us taxpayers is massive: each of us and our children are on the hook for the lost trillions ... the banks won't lend (all of a sudden they have a conscience about this???) and real unemployment is over 17%.
The banks need to pay each and every one of us back for their greed and hubris until we are made whole. Yes, Barney Frwank may have been the primary government motivator in "forcing you" to make bad loans ... but you knew they were bad loans, you sold those bad loans as "safe investments" to the public and then -- this is the killer -- you bet against those very same investments using such things as credit default swaps. As all the shit came tumbling down, and you got caught with your fingers in the pie (liberal use and absue of metaphors) you came pleading for help ... to us, the taxpayers. So we went further into debt, handing you our savings, with which you promptly went out and bought a Ferrari. And somehow you want us to feel bad for you.
The Republicans are, technically, correct about the abuse of government power to target a tax at one specific revenue producing industry -- to punish the few. But you know? This fiscal conservative would like to see their bonuses capped at 100% of salary for the next 10 years, salaries capped at CPI increases or decreases, and ROI over 15% returned to the government to fund education and pay down bailout spending (maybe 50/50). If the bankers don't like that, they can go out and find other jobs, there are plenty of people that will be willing to take their places.
AND, before you cretins at a certain nameless bank go saying that you didn't need the bailout, so why should you be punished ... I'd like to see a Congressional inquiry examine just how much you DID sell off to others, how much of the AIG money you did get (which is taxpayer money) ... the word on the street is $60 billion and that does not appear directly as a TARP handout. Rumor also has it that your institution was the LARGEST pruveyor of toxic junk over the 5 years prior to the crisis --only you had the good sense to offload it to others, whereas the now-defunct and bailed out institutions kept too much on their own balance sheets. How about tallying up all that bad paper (from everyone) and saying you can have your bonuses back when that is paid off?
posted by Zaphod at Friday, January 15, 2010
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home