Barack Obama: 'We want our money back.' And who gave it away to the banks, Mr President?

Telegraph Blogs (U.K.) ^ | January 15, 2010 | Gerald Warner

[Schnucki]

“We want our money back,” Barack Obama has told US banks, announcing a levy on large financial institutions to help repay the notorious bailout he imposed last year. Oh, do “we”? And who gave away the taxpayers’ money in the first place, Mr President?

This pretended identification with Joe on Main Street is a favourite ploy of dodgy politicos with their backs to the wall – Wall Street, in this case, which is imminently expected to announce bonuses beyond the dreams of avarice, hence Obama’s nervous anxiety to be seen to be “doing something”. If Obama wants to see the taxpayers’ money repaid, that will take some doing, since the Tarp bailout cost America $700bn.

The new tax on top banks is expected to raise $90bn – over 10 years. So that is around $9bn a year. But Wall Street is poised to dole out $47bn in bonuses this year alone. If this is assumed to be a lean year, at a very conservative estimate bank bonuses are going to total $500bn over the 10 years that the Obama tax painfully claws back just $90bn for Joe Public. No wonder a financial strategist in New York has already described it as “petty theft from bank balance sheets”.

That is not very nice language. Since the purpose of this cosmetic exercise is to save the face of a President with minimal physiognomy still showing through the egg splattered over his features from just about every policy he has touched, we need a more user-friendly terminology. How about “Small change you can believe in”?

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Just because something is repaid with interest does not mean the lending was proper in the first place.”

Where did the repaid money go? Where is it?

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Still waiting for one of you three 0-bots to explain why you are all in such hysterics at Bush for signing TARP but have yet to say one word about your god-let, 0bama, taking the re-payed TARP money and spending it.”

Do you think that maybe, JUST MAYBE Bush should have thought of this eventuality?

How about who is NOW in charge of “No Child Left Behind” billions?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

GW’s money came back w/interest.

Not all of it, financial firms still owe $100B

Obozo’s is still in the slush fund.

That's what I was afraid would happen when GWB signed the TARP bill. Even if he believed the bailout was necessary, he should have sent it back to fix it so that it could not be used as Obama's slush fund.

Why isn’t he coming down on Fannie/Fredie?

Because he loves socialism and hates capitalism.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

See #43

[javachip]

Treasury has actually done a pretty good job of making the TARP transactions public right from the start.

Transaction Reports

The bailout pieces outside of TARP aren't nearly as transparent.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Why isn’t he coming down on Fannie/Freddie? Because he loves socialism and hates capitalism’

Fannie and Freddie are the keys to the government promoting housing. Republicans in power promoted that, while democrats in power are now too. Keep in mind another housing crash is still possible so Obama will not tax them. Both parties love socialism, democrats just love it more.

The big banks being taxed now are unpopular especially with the Lib base so this is a great way to get the unhappy liberal base support without getting the general public upset. They probably approve too.

So far it looks like a good political move and dont see it backfiring on them.

[mkjessup]

"You 3 stooges are so busy screaming your hysteric bile about Bush on every thread you did not even know the bulk of the TARP money had been repaid, with interest, and that your god, Obama, had turned right around and spent it."

Fact: George W. Bush spent money like a drunken sailor, he was not only NOT a conservative, he was not at all fiscally responsible, he never even found his damn veto pen until 2006.

Fact: George W. Bush expanded the size, role and power of the federal government on a scale not seen since LBJ, that other loser from Texas.

Fact: George W. Bush failed to use his veto power to rein in the excessive spending and the federal behemoth, in fact even the buffoon Jimmy Carter vetoed more legislation in his 4 years in the White House, than George W. Bush did in 8.

Fact: George W. Bush was just one more big-spending liberal RINO and was more than happy to destroy whatever was left of the 'Party of Reagan', in fact he admitted as much prior to his last appearance before CPAC in 2008 when he said "there is no [conservative] movement, I redefined the Republican Party".

[javachip]

GW’s money came back w/interest.

The first TARP 'investments' in GMAC, GM, Chrysler and AIG were made on Bush's watch. That money's probably never coming back.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

So far it looks like a good political move and dont see it backfiring on them.

Unless they become aware that the banks are going to pass the fees on to consumers. This partly depends in how competent Steele and company will be.

[mkjessup]

“Still waiting for one of you three 0-bots to explain why you are all in such hysterics at Bush for signing TARP but have yet to say one word about your god-let, 0bama, taking the re-payed REPAID TARP money and spending it.”
Do you think that maybe, JUST MAYBE Bush should have thought of this eventuality?
How about who is NOW in charge of “No Child Left Behind” billions?

EXACTLY. George W. Bush never even considered the ramifications of how a potential 'Rat successor would avail themselves of the advantages of all those billions upon billions of dollars that were given to the banks, investment firms, etc., and GWB never thought about how such a 'Rat would make good use of the expanded federal bureaucracy (such as Der Department of Internal Homeland Security, Sieg Heil!), and America is reaping the rotten harvest that the Bush Administration sowed for eight years.

And for the BushBots, 'blah-blah-blah, tax-cuts, blah-blah-blah, Roberts & Alito, blah-blah-blah, "he kept us safe" [never mind those thousands and thousands of Americans robbed, raped & murdered by illegals who swarmed across our southern border with impunity due to the failure of GWB to enforce our laws], the BushBot chorus has become utterly and pathetically predictable.

[Sir Gawain]

Don’t feed the trolls. The thread will turn to garbage. Inconvenient facts hurt their heads.

[rabscuttle385]

some time learning what is going on in DC for a change.

Sickoflibs is from Maryland, and I live across the Potomac in Virginia.

Believe me, I do know what's going on DC, and I suspect that sickoflibs does too.

Utterly no excuse of the level of ignorance of basic political facts you three routinely display in your posting

Exactly what facts are you referring to? The ones that make Bush out to be a perfect conservative angel? (Hint: they aren't facts; they're RINO Party propaganda.)

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Unless they become aware that the banks are going to pass the fees on to consumers. This partly depends in how competent Steele and company will be’

My political sense says this will be hard to take advantage of. Because Dems can use the anti-TARP/bailout/bank sentiment.

Remember last summer we were pinging about credit card fees? That pretty much worked out as I thought. They raised many CC rates costing those that have a balance, and maybe late and over limit fees. But those like me that don't believe CCs are for loans still not only pay no fees, and still get the same cashback rewards and the grace period free. We have all the power. I remember many mant FNC segments at the time claiming they would punish me for the law change, and I posted that it wouldn't happen. I put everything I can on Chase and they appear to love me for it.

[MNJohnnie]

Quit blustering and finally answer the question.

Why do you 0-bots spend every day spamming every possible thread here telling us how we all should be so upset at Bush for signing TARP yet have said NOT ONE WORD about Obama hijacking the REPAID TARP money into new payoffs to his political activists base?

You posting history indicates your posturing as a “Conservative” is specious. You only direct your outrage 1 way and that never involves attacking the Leftists for anything.

[rabscuttle385]

Why do you 0-bots spend every day spamming every possible thread here telling us how we all should be so upset at Bush for signing TARP yet have said NOT ONE WORD about Obama hijacking the REPAID TARP money into new payoffs to his political activists base?

Because Obama's an a-hole who's expected to do that sort of thing.

[rabscuttle385]

You only direct your outrage 1 way and that never involves attacking the Leftists for anything.

McCain is a leftist.

[sickoflibs]

Prior to Obama, Bush created the largest run-up in spending and government growth and power in our lifetimes, and some of our parents lifetimes. He raped the future taxpayer in a way so his Bush-bot worshippers could lie and claim it cost no one anything. So now the bots say “look at the fees Obama is charging the banks”. Well, who the hell did you think was going to pay for all Bush’s give-aways?

The question is still unanswered, where in the constitution does it give the president the authority to used federal tax money to pick which banks (the big ones naturally) and auto-companies should stay in business, and which ones must fail or get bought,...just because the president is Republican?

And why did the Bush-bots assume that the Democrat THEY PUT IN POWER (by p..ing everyone off) would not use the same new powers their hero Bush created, for their OWN purposes?

[sickoflibs]

RE :” McCain is a leftist .”

I believe the term Beck used was progressive. And Palin’s response was : “ HMMM. Maybe that more progressive road we were on is not accepted by the electorate anymore. “ at : Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin on John McCain and Republicans

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

My political sense says this will be hard to take advantage of. Because Dems can use the anti-TARP/bailout/bank sentiment.

You may be right, but that assumes that the US public is too clueless to see that BO will not use taxes to reduce the deficit, and that deficits are getting out of hand. Plus we are headed for lots of other taxes and fees if Obamacare passes, which would add to anti-tax momentum.

[Deb]

Congratulations on the post most devoid of facts, truth or coherence.