Obama Bank Fee Could Exceed $100 Billion:

more headlines

[1] http://blog.freedomist.info/2010/01/13/1-13-10-business-news-headlines-obama-to-gouge-banks-chicago-convention-corruption-more/

Obama Bank-Fee Plan May Tap Voter Anger Over Bailouts, Bonuses (Bloomberg)

[2] http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20100113/pl_bloomberg/a370bfwwrncu

The move may have a bigger political than fiscal impact. By including it in the budget message he will send to Congress next month, the president is tapping into public anger over the bailouts of the financial and auto industries, executive bonuses as well as the deficit.

“The politics on this is really quite easy,” said Doug Elliott, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former managing director at JPMorgan Chase & Co. “The public would be supportive of anything up to shooting and burning the bankers.”

[3] Obama’s New Bank Fees To Be Forced On The Fed-Reserved Public

[4] http://www.factbat.com/blog/2010/1/11/obamas-new-bank-fees-to-be-forced-on-the-fed-reserved-public.html

As stated [5] in an article on the MSNBC website President Barack Obama is now seeking to levy fees upon banks for the express intent of paying down the deficit. As well, if there is a shortfall in the budget then even those banks who have paid back all TARP monies in full may find themselves on the hook for contributions.

While this certainly sends the message that the American public is finding bank bailouts and financier decadence less and less palatable, the fact is that those who helped to create much of the financial meltdown and recessing economy are nothing short of disingenuously motivated money mavens, and felonious economic pick-pockets who enjoy fleecing the entire citizenry of this nation with the eternal assistance of government.

The Big Question: Will a new bank fee help?

[6] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/75427-the-big-question-will-a-new-bank-fee-help

Mark Calabria, director of Financial Regulation Studies at the Cato Institute, said:

Perhaps I am a little confused, but didn’t the Obama Administration tell the American public only months ago that TARP was turning a profit?  But now the same administration is proposing to assess a fee on banks to cover losses from the TARP.  Maybe President Obama is coming around to the realization that the TARP has indeed been a loser for the taxpayer.  He appears, however, to be missing the critical reason why:  the bailouts of the auto companies and AIG, all non-banks. This is to say nothing of the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose losses will far exceed those from the TARP. Where is the plan to re-coup losses from Fannie and Freddie? Or a plan to re-coup our rescue of the autos?

[7] http://viss-blog.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-to-announce-bank-fees-to-cover.html

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.

“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.

[8] Obama To Push Tax On Being ‘Too Big To Fail’

President Obama will unveil on Thursday a proposed levy on the nation’s biggest financial firms structured not just to repay taxpayers for the bank bailout, but to recoup some of the public subsidy that “too big to fail” banks have enjoyed on account of their … $25-$50 billion in deposits is one fee (Let’s say 0.1%, that’s $25 million on $25 billion in assets)…
[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bailout