1) Obama tells banks: `We want our money back'
…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.
…They would have to pay up even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance (emphasis mine) and most that did have repaid the infusions.
This is not a tax. This is a shakedown.
…"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. There are so many things wrong with this statement it is hard to know where to begin! IT IS UNFAIR! I seem to remember YOUR administration forbidding the repay of funds from certain banks not long ago, King Thug Obama, so that you could gain and maintain control of them! I recall that threats were made to banks who refused the bailout. And while we’re talking about bonuses, how about the salaries of Congress continuing to rise while industry is taking pay cuts? …"Politics have overtaken the economics," said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, a group representing large Wall Street institutions. "This is a punitive tax on companies that repaid TARP in full or never took TARP." Even before details came out, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., said: "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea." …But GOP Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, who's on Frank's committee, called it a "job-killing initiatives that will further cripple the economy by increasing fees passed on to consumers and small businesses, while reducing consumer credit." See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100114/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_bank_fees 1a) Obama to unveil bank fee to cover bailout losses: official …Even though auto firms General Motors and Chrysler also got money from the TARP fund, they will not have to pay the fee, the official added, warning financial firms not to make an issue of that omission. In addition, not all the firms that will be targeted by the fee actually received TARP funds. Yes, because this has nothing to do with TARP and everything to do with a shakedown of the banks. Robber barons are now in charge of the government. How long can this continue? "I don't think that it would be wise for them to try to suggest that living up to the letter of the law is somehow an unfair burden on them," the official said. You “don’t think that it would be wise“? What the heck does that mean? Are they going to wake up with a horse’s head in their bed? The cost of the fee levied on the financial firms will be assessed according to a formula looking at their liabilities, total assets and equity and tier-one capital. A bank fee may help the White House channel public anger over big bonus payments on Wall Street, as Americans face the reality of 10 percent unemployment and a slow economic recovery. Yeah, that’ll do it. Increasing confiscatory taxes will increase employment, I’m sure! See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100114/pl_afp/usfinanceeconomybanksobama_20100114142608 1b) Democrats Push to Kill Capitalism; Obama Uses Alinsky Plan on Banks RUSH: In the latest attack -- and it's right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. In the latest attack on the American private sector, Barack Obama this morning in Washington at the White House spoke about a new tax on banks. OBAMA: When I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people -- folks who have not been made whole and who continue to face real hardship in this recession -- we want our money back, and we're gonna get it. And that's why I'm proposing a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to be imposed on major financial firms until the American people are fully compensated for the extraordinary assistance they provided to Wall Street. RUSH: Now, folks, I'm telling you: This is right out of Saul Alinsky. He is trading on the fact that he believes you despise Wall Street, that you despise fat-cat bankers, and that anything done to punish them you will agree to and support Obama for doing. They have paid back the TARP money. They were forced to take it in the first place. Let's get the history of this right. Many of these CEOs at these institutions were dragged into an office at the Treasury department by then-Secretary Henry Paulson, and they were given three hours to sign a document saying that they will accept bailout money. The CEO of Wells Fargo bank did not want any bailout money. They weren't in any problem. They had no exposure to the subprime mortgage crisis. Still, they had to take $25 billion. These firms who were forced to take the TARP money have mostly paid it back (emphasis mine). This is, again, a flat-out lie and disingenuous as hell. "When I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people..." They were said to be "too big to fail" by you, sir! You said they couldn't fail. We were told an economic crisis of biblical proportions would happen if we didn't do this. You forced it on them, and you forced it on everybody else. Folks, don't make a mistake here of assuming that I don't think bankers and financial people ever do anything wrong. What I'm objecting to here is this move by Obama to run in and control every aspect of what they do. It's just another grab at a portion of the private sector that is none of his business, and he's relying on this class envy, him thinking that you hate these people. That's why he didn't object to any of the protests at AIG headquarters homes, the CEOs' homes (which were, by the way, conducted and organized largely by ACORN). So he forces the banks to take the TARP money, they mostly pay it back and now he's going to tax them for forcing them to take it in the first place! Here's another sound bite, before we get to the Alinsky connection here. ..RUSH: Well, it seems to me, Mr. President, the one area of our economy that's doing well is Wall Street! There's money being made on Wall Street, Mr. President. Is that what bugs you, Mr. President? There's money being made there. That's the reason bonuses are being paid. Have you seen what happened to the Dow Jones Industrial Average? It's climbing. It's up 22 points right now. It's at ten six: 10,600. It's the only area of the economy doing well and now you're assaulting it. There's nowhere in the private sector left to invest. That's why money is going to Wall Street, pure and simple. "Business as usual." Not punish Wall Street firms? Yes, it is. It's exactly what you're doing. "Prevent the abuse and excess that nearly caused the... It was not bonuses and salaries that caused the collapse. What caused the collapse was Saul Alinsky, Saul Alinsky and ACORN taking over the banks and demanding that banks make loans to people that they knew could never pay 'em back. The banks were holding worthless paper. So they came up with a bunch of new Financial Products to sell to try to get some insurance on this worthless paper they were forced to lend (emphasis mine). This is just mind-boggling here. It's more manipulation. It is another undisguised attack on free markets, and the president of the United States insisting that go there aren't going to be free markets anymore. He's going to regulate it. We're not going to have risks. We're not going to have up and down cycles. We're not going to have any entrepreneurism, and we're not going to have any qualified people in these institutions because they're all going to leave to find jobs elsewhere, even if they have to leave the financial services industries. …RUSH: They've already paid most of the TARP money back, and getting rid of these bonuses would not make a dent in how much TARP money there was. There's nowhere near $700 billion in bonuses (emphasis mine). There's still $200 billion of TARP money that's not spent. What the hell is he talking about here? I'll tell you what he's talking about: 100%-pure class envy. He wants you to hate these people, and he wants your support because he wants you to believe he hates 'em, too, and he's getting even with them. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011410/content/01125107.guest.html 2) U.S. Chamber warns of 'double-dip' recession because of Dem policies U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue warned the U.S. faces a double-dip recession because of the taxes and regulations under consideration by the Democratic Congress and President Barack Obama. “Congress, the administration and states must recognize that our weak economy simply could not sustain all the new taxes, regulations and mandates now under consideration. It’s a sure-fire recipe for a double-dip recession, or worse,” Donohue said in a speech providing the Chamber's outlook for 2010. See: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/75401-us-chamber-warns-of-double-dip-recession 3) For health care, a frantic ride in the final days WASHINGTON – Like a roller-coaster ride on its last twisting turns, President Barack Obama's campaign to remake health care is barreling into final days of breathless suspense and headlong momentum. Democrats, led by Obama himself, are deploying this weekend to salvage an unpredictable Senate race in Massachusetts, while senior White House and congressional staffers in Washington hurry to finish work on cost and coverage options at the heart of the sweeping legislation. A Republican victory in the race to fill the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's seat would deprive Democrats of the 60-vote majority needed to pass the bill in the Senate. Obama and Democratic congressional leaders would have a political window of perhaps days only to try to ram the bill through — at considerable risk of incurring public wrath (emphasis mine). See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100117/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul 4) UNBELIEVABLE: Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably shouldn't work in the emergency room' How can a Massachusetts Senate candidate possibly offend 39 percent of voters in her state? If it's Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley, she would tell devout Catholics not to bother working in an emergency room (H/T Jim Hoft - Big Government). In the audio clip below, Ms. Coakley chokes on a question from radio host Ken Pittman referring to the conscience clause. Under the conscience clause, workers in health-care environments ranging from doctors to maintenance men can refuse to offer services, information, or advice to patients on issues like contraception, blood transfusions, etc..if the workers are morally against it. Here is how Ms. Coakley handled the matter. (audio and transcript below): Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that. Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear. Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom. Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room. See: http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/14/martha-coakley-devout-catholics-probably-shouldnt-/ 4a) Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows. Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos. “It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.” See: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100114brown-out_poll_shows_scott_brown_trumping_martha_coakley/srvc=home&position=0 5) Here’s at Least One Job ‘Created or Saved Washington, DC - In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy. "It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project. See: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjU3YjAxNTNlNDljNTM2YTY4YjExMWUyMDMwYTM= 6) Majority would vote against Obama
A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the '12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.
The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.
Obama's first year in office has been marked by an unemployment rate that surged to 10%, an increased commitment of troops to Afghanistan and a health care battle that has taken a serious political toll on the WH.
Obama's approval rating is down to 47%, the poll showed, a 14-point drop since the April survey. 45% disapprove, up 17 points from April. Only 41% say they trust Obama more than Congressional GOPers, while 33% pick the GOP over the WH. That 8-point gap is down from a 21-point edge Obama sported as recently as Sept.
Just 34% say the country is moving in the right direction, down 13 points since April, and 55% say it is off on the wrong track, up 13 points over the same period.
But as GOPers focus on taxes and spending, that message seems to be causing Obama the most harm. Among those who believe Obama's policies have moved the country in the wrong direction, 45% cite spending and government regulation as a top cause for their opposition.
See: http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/majority_would.php
7) Ben Nelson booed in restaurant
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and his wife were leaving dinner at a new pizza joint near their home in Omaha one night last week when a patron began complaining about Nelson’s decisive vote in favor of the Senate’s health care bill.
Other customers started booing. A woman yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!” And the Nelsons and their dining companions beat a hasty retreat.
“It was definitely a scene in there,” said Tom Lewis, a 41-year-old dentist and registered Republican who witnessed the incident. A second witness confirmed the incident to POLITICO.
See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31488.html
8) U.N.'s World Health Organization Eyeing Global Tax on Banking, Internet Activity
Such a scheme could raise "tens of billions of dollars" on behalf of the United Nations' public health arm from a broad base of consumers, which would then be used to transfer drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities, among other things, to the developing world.
The multibillion-dollar "indirect consumer tax" is only one of a "suite of proposals" for financing the rapid transformation of the global medical industry that will go before WHO's 34-member supervisory Executive Board at its biannual meeting in Geneva.
The idea is the most lucrative — and probably the most controversial — of a number of schemes proposed by a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats who have been working for the past 14 months at WHO's behest on "new and innovative sources of funding" to accomplish major shifts in the production of medical R&D.
See: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583127,00.html
No comments:
Post a Comment