A couple excerpts from the article:

Obama has leaned on banks to boost lending to small businesses and homeowners facing foreclosure, support his plans for revamping financial regulations and discourage bonuses that encourage excess risk taking.

"They've had a year to figure out how they wanted to participate in the nation's recovery and they don't somehow seem to have gotten that message," said Anita Dunn, former White House communications director...

After a Dec. 14 White House session with executives from some of the nation's largest banks, the president said that now that financial institutions are stabilized after taxpayer bailouts, "we expect an extraordinary commitment from them to help rebuild the economy."

In an interview broadcast the night before, Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes" program that he didn't run for president "to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street."

Most of those banks have already paid back their TARP funds. Therefore, the funds have already been "recouped".

TARP was a stupid idea, that ObamaGeithnerBushPaulson all voted for and funded. And it's a little amusing that Obama now wants to force banks to increase lending, but also go after them for tens of billions of dollars that otherwise would go into the productive economy.

Isn't it obvious this clown is making it up as he goes along?

Most of those banks have already paid back their TARP funds. Therefore, the funds have already been "recouped".

According to some of the banks, they would have gone under without TARP. Instead, they made money off taxpayer $ and gave themselves bonuses. Why shouldn't the taxpayers get a cut of that?

TARP was a stupid idea, that ObamaGeithnerBushPaulson all voted for and funded. And it's a little amusing that Obama now wants to force banks to increase lending, but also go after them for tens of billions of dollars that otherwise would go into the productive economy. Isn't it obvious this clown is making it up as he goes along? -- #2 | Posted by rightisright

Congress, including Obama, was duped by Paulson et. al. into voting for the bailouts because they were told that the banks would use the money to increase lending. Instead, they used much of it for mergers and acquisitions:

According to some of the banks, they would have gone under without TARP. Instead, they made money off taxpayer $ and gave themselves bonuses. Why shouldn't the taxpayers get a cut of that?
* * * *

We do. It's called "income tax".

Hey, I love it though. Obama crawled into bed with the big banks because they give him enormous campaign dollars. Now there's a populist revolt underway, and he's scrambling to figure out how to get himself headlines again. Too delicious for words.

I notice, too, that AIG and GMAC are exempt from these big tax hike proposals. Funny dat.

Obama crawled into bed with the big banks because they give him enormous campaign dollars. Now there's a populist revolt underway, and he's scrambling to figure out how to get himself headlines again. -- #4 | Posted by rightisright

Well, neither of us can get inside his head. I honestly believe he (like more experienced House and Senate colleagues and most of the MSM) was duped, he's justifiably angry, and that

he didn't run for president "to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street."

In other news 20 of the country's largest banks and financial institutions recently announced plans to raise interest rates on credit cards from 9% to 29% and to raise banking fees in order to help maintain the standard of living of the CEO's and so they can have better bonuses and parties. After all why should they suffer from this financial crisis?

this is the Thread where some ASsshole Wingding defends the Banks whose policy is the charging fees for services, (overdraft, checking, etc, etc) while attacking the notion of them paying a Fee to those who provided them a service (bailout)!

and when are the "grass roots" Teabagger going to get on this populace train?
Oh, thats right ----- its not grass roots but corperatly funded. Never Mind!

Too delicious for words Indeed!

It's sort of like a "bonus" for the taxpayer paid by the same banks that became so profitable using TARP funds that they can afford to give out billions in bonuses. Considering many of these banks would have gone the way of Lehman Bros. they should pay the fee and also say thank you to the taxpayers of America.

Isn't the 'fee' already accounted through 'interest'??

TARP was a farce to begin with.

And the congress has not done anything to stop the derivatives scandel from continueing..

Instead, they made money off taxpayer $ and gave themselves bonuses. Why shouldn't the taxpayers get a cut of that?

There you go again, pretending that money that gets pumped back into the fed is somehow being given "to the taxpayers." Show me any proposed tax breaks that will correspond with the money the fed receives from this plan.

I honestly believe he...was duped

Wow. How old are you?

Isn't it obvious this clown is making it up as he goes along?

#2 | Posted by rightisright

Iswn't it obvious this clown is a true socalist. The term commie even comes to mind.

In other news 20 of the country's largest banks and financial institutions recently announced plans to raise interest rates on credit cards from 9% to 29% and to raise banking fees

#6 | Posted by donnerboy

Mews flash........... Don't live on borrowed money from them and then it isn't your problem. Why must I state the obvious to all you libs.

"Isn't it obvious this clown is making it up as he goes along?"

I doubt there is any other way to go about it.

"Iswn't it obvious this clown is a true socalist. The term commie even comes to mind."

Only to those with a one track mind who see a commie behind every bush. Sniper longs for the days of McCarthy. Things were simpler then, good guys and bad buys, black hats and white hats. Simpletons all over yearn for the cold war.

the bank system routinely destroys the lived of people who get involved with them, through insane fees. we should charge them a 30% interest rate, on top of a monthly fee, on top of some other fees I can think of. Any suggestion that money obama would charge would benefit the economy are made with no knowledge of the banking system. the money will be used to destroy everything you love.

Our entire economic system only works if you allow fair competition. Bailing out failure is not fair. When businesses are run horribly, they should fail. In fact, we need them to fail. That leaves an opening in the marketplace for more competent people to fill. And the failures can go find another niche that they are more equipped to fill. This is essential.

That we gave these losers billions of dollars we don't really have is a huge problem. But even if we get every penny back, the bailouts will still have a destructive effect on this country because we've propped up a bunch of arrogant, incompetent failures and the predictable result will be more of the same.

"Mews flash..........."

Not everyone is fortunate enough to be living for free in their mothers basement.

Some of us have families homes and cars and the bills and crisis's that come with that kind of responsibility. To think that one can go through life and never use credit is foolish.

Unless you are a hermit living in a cave or are independently wealthy.

Congress, including Obama, was duped by Paulson et. al. into voting for the bailouts because they were told that the banks would use the money to increase lending. Instead, they used much of it for mergers and acquisitions:

Duped...what a fucking joke.

These people are bought and paid for...it's called return on investment. The only one duped is you...into thinking that THEY were duped.

Congress, including Obama, was duped by Paulson et. al. into voting for the bailouts because they were told that the banks would use the money to increase lending. Instead, they used much of it for mergers and acquisitions:
#3 | Posted by Phoenix at 2010-01-13 11:24 AM

Yeah, Obama was duped.

And btw, there's nothing productive about much of these banks' activities. They're gambling on derivatives, not providing productive capital for worthy business ventures.
#3 | Posted by Phoenix at 2010-01-13 11:24 AM

The only one duped is you...into thinking that THEY were duped.

#18 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

ff

I honestly believe he (like more experienced House and Senate colleagues and most of the MSM) was duped, he's justifiably angry, and that

he didn't run for president "to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street."

Then you're just another "hope and change" sucker...

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Oh, Barry!

Don't be silly - banks don't pay interest, they just charge interest.

Didn't Dubya leave a copy of the rules in a drawer somewhere?

"The public would be supportive of anything up to shooting and burning the bankers."

Oh, don't be so dramatic, Mr. Elliott - we wouldn't do that.

What we want is to send all of you to Iraq and Afghanistan and let Al-Qaeda do it for us.

Shouldn't there be a bunch of anti-trust chatter going on right now? Haven't a number of the "too big to fails" only gotten bigger?

The only one duped is you...into thinking that THEY were duped. -- #18 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Maybe. He made enough uninformed statements about the economy during the primary season to suggest that he really didn't get it.

Doesn't matter. He's getting on the right track now.

Obama appoints Geithner...

I'm no fan of Geithner's, but he's unique for being a career civil servant -- i.e., about the only person Obama could have chosen who WON'T be looking for a job in the banking industry.

You're a making a great case for the bailout here. -- #19 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I hope not. I've been against it since it was proposed.

How quickly do we forget - - the bank CEO's were called to a meeting with the President where they were forced to sign on the dotted line to receive the bailouts.

Both the Bush and Obama regimes are to blame. At this point, Obama needs to just take the money back, pick up the pieces, and learn from this mistake. Trying to impose penalties on the very people that he all but forced to take the money will only serve to hurt the end user...aka...the tax payer. The best for all is to simply move on. He nor Geitner was smart enough to understand what was happening. Besides, hasn't it been Obama who has said that he was no longer going to allow predatory lending practices? I got news for you. Changing the rules after the fact is very definately a preditory lending practice.

#21 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Gosh, funny thing, Iraqi -- McCain received support from exactly the same bankers, a few more, and almost no one else:

Merrill Lynch $373,595
Citigroup Inc $322,051
Morgan Stanley $273,452
Goldman Sachs $230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107
US Government $208,379
AT&T Inc $201,438
Wachovia Corp $195,063
UBS AG $192,493
Credit Suisse Group $183,353
PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900
US Army $167,820
Bank of America $166,026
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $159,596
Blank Rome LLP $154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437
US Dept of Defense $144,105
FedEx Corp $131,974
Bear Stearns $117,498
Lehman Brothers $114,357

Only to those with a one track mind who see a commie behind every bush. Sniper longs for the days of McCarthy.

#14 | Posted by danni

I guess you think the country is drifting away from socalist toward capitalism. I long for the days of Ronnie without the dem congress.

You see some rich, fat cat behind every bush and look back at the day the czars fell in russia.

Gosh, funny thing, Iraqi -- McCain received support from exactly the same bankers, a few more, and almost no one else

McCain received half as much from most investment banks but he is irrelevant because he is not in the white house. Furthermore, it is interesing to note that McCain sponsored a bill in 2006 that regulated Fannie while in committee friend of Angelo Chris Dodd and Obama voted against it

Many republicans were outraged when word of the Bonuses came to light and then they were outraged when the Govt tried to stop the bonuses.

Obstructionism 24/7.

"I long for the days of Ronnie without the dem congress."

Sure you do, you remember what it was like before Reagan/Bush/Bush ran up trillions of debt. It was a great scam, lower taxes and pretend deficits don't matter. That's Reaganomics in a nut shell.

The bastardly thing about all this is that Obama and friends NEVER thought through the implications of their bank aid or purposely didn't include stuff like limiting bonuses.

It is a great scam, spend, spend, spend, and pretend deficits don't matter. That's obamanomics in a nut shell.

Sometimes I love your words.

Many republicans were outraged when word of the Bonuses came to light and then they were outraged when the Govt tried to stop the bonuses.

#31 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-01-13 02:54 PM

Being outraged over the companies' excesses doesn't mean you want the government to start capping pay, to increase their meddling in the economy.

It is a great scam, spend, spend, spend, and pretend deficits don't matter.

Isn't that "Standard Operating Procedure" in Washington?

It is a great scam, spend, spend, spend, and pretend deficits don't matter

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts.

726,
Stop living in the past. 9-11 was Clinton's fault and the budget is Obama's fault from before he was elected and nothing major happened from 1-20-01 to 1-19-09, then it all went to hell in 24 hours.

Gosh, funny thing, Iraqi -- McCain received support from exactly the same bankers, a few more, and almost no one else:

No shit...and he was in lockstep with Obama and Dubya, because he is a whore...just like them.

Though I do appreciate your smugness as though I view this as some sort of partisan issue.

Sorry, my bad.

Gosh, funny thing, Iraqi -- McCain received support from exactly the same bankers, a few more, and almost no one else:

So what? He is bought and paid for too. Your point?

So they paid the money bank under the terms Geithner demanded. Now they want more? Remember many of those tarp banks only took the money cause the gov made them to, so as to create the appearance that taking the money wasn't bad. Of course many here care NOT to recall that FACT. Just ask northern trust for example

WHY do they want the money?????So they can pay for the GM Chrylser and the UAW bailout, AIG, and GMAC, and fannie and freddie. These were ALL gov directed plans, now they change the rules.

NO AMERICAN is safe when Congress is in session!

It's the Obama way, create enemies and rip them in public. Add bankers to the long list of Americans that the zero has alienated/chastised/vilified/
attacked.

If he doesn't try to direct public outrage at someone else...it will be directed at him!

President Douche Bag has spoken!!

an. 14 (Bloomberg) -- As many as 50 financial firms with assets greater than $50 billion each would be hit by a levy President Barack Obama will announce today to help recoup taxpayer bailout money and trim the federal budget deficit, an administration official said.

McCain received support from exactly the same bankers, a few more, and almost no one else: -- Phoenix

No shit...and he was in lockstep with Obama and Dubya, because he is a whore

You're losing track of the story, aren't you? He's turning on the bankers.

BTW, the numbers have to make you laugh, don't they? They're trying to buy politicians with less money than they give themselves in bonuses.

Though I do appreciate your smugness as though I view this as some sort of partisan issue. -- #39 | Posted by iraqibukkake

Sorry about that -- was in a hurry and didn't really even notice who I was responding to.

Banks aren't lending and Obama pulls them into the WH to have a chat---to loosen lending

Obama wants to tax banks---banks then lend less because of less capital again

Obama pulls the banks into the WH to have a chat on why they aren't lending money and to loosen lending

DUH

It's the Obama way, create enemies and rip them in public. Add bankers to the long list of Americans that the zero has alienated/chastised/vilified/
attacked.

If he doesn't try to direct public outrage at someone else...it will be directed at him!

#43 | Posted by DavetheWave

What do you expect--the guy is in deep trouble politically---he's flailing about in a paper bag and trying all the tricks to maintain some degree of support---he blew it at the beginning when the stimulus was not focussed and instead was full of earmarks and pork---would have been a lot smarter to focus on the small business job machine--and now the money is gone and we have a bigger deficit then ever to dig out of.

...banks then lend less because of less capital again -- #46 | Posted by matsop

They didn't lend more when they had more capital. Threats seem as likely to get them to lend as capital does.

...the guy is in deep trouble politically... -- #47 | Posted by matsop

This is overblown, I think. Honeymoon is over -- happens in every presidency. Late-night comics have finally figured out they can make fun of him, just like they do every other prominent politician, even though he's Obama. Becoming mortal in people's eyes isn't a crisis, however unusual it is for Obama.

"Look, the financial institutions collectively, particularly the larger ones, caused problems by their errors - their errors of judgment, their irresponsibility, in some cases their skating around dishonesty," said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass.

"I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the industry that, A, caused these problems more than any other and, B, benefited from the activity, should be contributing," he said.

Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a member of Frank's committee, ridiculed the idea. "To think that banks will loan more money if you tax them is beyond economic ignorance," he said.

Franks, seriously, you are responsible in this as well.

Let's face it, Obama is a fan of Calvinball:

Other kids' games are all such a bore!
They've gotta have rules and they gotta keep score!
Calvinball is better by far!
It's never the same! It's always bizarre!
You don't need a team or a referee!
You know that it's great, 'cause it's named after me!

The rules change at a whim.

"To think that banks will loan more money if you tax them is beyond economic ignorance," he said. -- #50 | Posted by scooter28054

Sounds like someone who needs to get his nose out of a textbook and deal with reality. Anyone who's paying attention has to know that banks' current failure to lend has nothing to do with capital availability.

TARP?

Isn't that the program that bush rammed thru with no oversight or accountability being a part of it and mccain threatened to suspend his campaign in order to insure it got passed immediately?

What can Obama be thinking by trying to make these banks pay the money back and charge them some fees for using taxpayer money?

Doesn't he know who owns him and our other govt reps?

Guess not, eh?

Another opportunity to raise taxes, and another bad idea from the left. Rahm has to be doing this on purpose.

Let's see now, the "right" is for responsibility, yet reagan/bush41 QUADTRUPLED the national debt and bush43 DOUBLED it from 5 to 10 TRILLION, but neither bothered to balance the budget by "raising" taxes to meet their spending.

Let me ask you rightpolicy, do you just charge all your expenses and NEVER pay them like your republican heroes have done with our govt?

That would perhaps explain your confusion.

dems=tax and spend

pugs=spend and spend

eh?

Let me ask you rightpolicy, do you just charge all your expenses and NEVER pay them like your republican heroes have done with our govt?...

#55 | Posted by woke

There are times to raise taxes like with Clinton, and there are times not to, like now. Government should be cut in half in size, but funny how that never seems to be an optoin.

I pay my taxes, my bills, and live within my means. I do not expect my neighbor to pay my mortgage. FYI

How do you reconcile supporting the last 3 repug admins who QUADTRUPLED our national debt and DOUBLED it rightpolicy?

What is funny is how repugs rail against taxes repeatedly calling dems=tax and spend, yet never seem to acknowledge how their heroes' policies created the debt, eh?

Who is more responsible?-a party that creates debt, but never pays it off, .......
or a party that raises taxes despite the faux political outrage of those who created the debt but didn't bother to even attempt to pay it off and in fact HID that debt by never including it in their fiscal budgets? (iraqnam/afghanistan debt)

Do tell.

There certainly needs to be more stringent regs to level this out, but aren't exhorbitant fees going to find their way back out of the pockets of taxpayers in higher service costs, etc?????
the banking industry will find hideous ways to pass this down the line...
There needs to be more regulation in how they manage their money...we do not need total bank failures as that would defeat every purpose..!!

There certainly needs to be more stringent regs to level this out, but aren't exhorbitant fees going to find their way back out of the pockets of taxpayers in higher service costs, etc????? -- #58 | Posted by drsoul

The Administration is arguing that since these banks still have to compete with banks not being taxed, they won't raise service costs.

"the banking industry will find hideous ways to pass this down the line..."

you post as if the banking industry needs an additional expense to justify increasing fees, etc. on consumers. Fact is the banking industry will continue to increase fees, interest rates, etc. until they are prevented from doing so by banking regulations whether or not these fees are levied against them.

"There are times to raise taxes like with Clinton, and there are times not to, like now. Government should be cut in half in size, but funny how that never seems to be an optoin."

You post as if those are economic facts when in reality they are nothing more than talking points.
Repeat often enough and many believe them, still doesn't make them true though.

Exactly why, as I said, there needs to be more regulation, as the fees are not going to do a whole lot stand alone...
and the banks not being taxed are certainly not going to hold back on fees for long in competition..
for a lot of companies and taxpayers, changing banks is not as fluid as it used to be and in economic times, where credit reports tend to have higher negative ratings, this takes out a lot of the competition.

Who is more responsible?-a party that creates debt, but never pays it off, .......

#57 | Posted by woke

That would be every administration since JFK's.

"the banking industry will find hideous ways to pass this down the line..."

Also known as Liberal trickle down economics.

"Also known as Liberal trickle down economics."

So now "trickle down economics" comes from liberals.

Hilarious.

Only when fees are involved.

63

My point is the hypocrisy of repugs calling dems: tax and spend, while the last 3 repug admins QUADTRUPLED and DOUBLED our national debt......spend and spend with no way to pay it off.....oh, wait, "read my lips" bush41 DID raise taxes, but not enough to make up for QUADTRUPLING the debt, eh?

More on topic, I'm noting the rw revisionists who are ignoring the fact that repugs championed TARP with no caveats and Obama has since done things to make banks more accountable: demanded they repay and now charging them for using taxpayer money in attempts to collect the money back for taxpayers.

Again, which party is more responsible in this issue?

(and which are the hypocrites?)

Who is more responsible?-a party that creates debt, but never pays it off, .......
or a party that raises taxes despite the faux political outrage of those who created the debt but didn't bother to even attempt to pay it off and in fact HID that debt by never including it in their fiscal budgets? (iraqnam/afghanistan debt)

Do tell.

#57 | Posted by woke

Any party that increases the size of government is to blame, tax-and-spend AND borrow-and-spend. This destructive cycle has been caused by both. I don't bow down to either party like you.