Finance reform bill
 

Republicans support banks, not taxpayers


I know the banks will just pass the cost on to consumers, but consumers will have a choice and there'll be competition between banks to help keep the increased costs lower.

and George Bush hates black people. I think you've got all the bases covered now Kanye.

That's some respectful discussion.

Anymore, Brown's refusal to support reform is just another typical Republican tactic to block solutions to the nation's problems. If he had come up with specific ways that the 19 billion could be taken from the federal budget, I would feel a little better about his action, but he didn't.

I shed few tears for the banking industry. Its ill conceived actions got us into this mess, and the tax payer is paying billions to bail out financial institutions.

Imposing a tax on the larger banking institutions seems only fair to me. My tax dollars are going into supporting them. It seems only fair that they pay part of the cost for unraveling this mess they have got us all into.

(bold mine)

That's what I was thinking. He used the buzz words "cut federal spending" which seems to serve the purpose of saying that if the current administration weren't spending so much the money would be readily available. OK, fine. Cut WHAT?

I agree with you Sam, stick it to the financial institutions. They can handle it. They are responsible for their own actions, as we are expected to be responsible for ours.

Makes sense on the surface, but be assured that any tax imposed on any business will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher fees. They will get it back from the taxpayer one way or another. So you get to pay twice, once to the feds and again through higher fees.

No, you pay taxes, with no choice, or you choose to use a bank with higher fees. Not both. And if the bank pays, I can choose not to use a bank.

Sam, here is what I was talking about, today's headlines:

Banks might look into other fees to compensate new rule
BY JOE GIESSLER • The Eagle-Gazette Staff • July 1, 2010

http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com...NEWS01/7010305

I fully expect to see the same changes to recoop fees in the healthcare industry...

Fuck all those "rewards" gimmicks and bullshit, just be a basic bank and settle for being the richest guy in town, instead of trying to be the richest guy in the world.

But now days a lot of the community banks are the ones failing and being taken over by the Feds. They were also caught up in the bad debt craze. The big ones that survived the last round are better able to take the hits. I don't like it either but that is the way it is.

A lot of banks in general have failed. Community banks are still around. I bank at one and it is doing quite nicely. According to the link in the OP only the largest banks would be subjected to the tax. That means that smaller banks might have a bit of a competitive edge and could continue with lower fees, etc. If the big boys decide to increase fees, the consumer has the option of switching banks.

My community bank seems to be doing well, also.

1) I don't support additional taxes on banks any more than I supported the bailouts to those same banks. Neither action will have the desired result. Massive future taxpayer funded bailouts didn't do anything but provide incentive for more future irresponsibility built upon current corruption. Additional taxes will merely be passed on to you and I through a series of hidden and transparent fees. Is there a -5% level of support?

2) My snarky reply to Spexx's initial post is meant as humor. I still think it is funny. His cut and dry statement that R's support banks more than individuals, while oversimplified, triggered a "well, du-uh" response in my head. R and D matters very little. These men and women are members of a club you and I simply aren't invited to join. Lobby groups climb over eachother to bribe today's senator or congressman who will be a lobbiest in 4-6 years bribing other politicians for similar causes. We - the individuals who elect them - are just a tool to get them into the club.

Well, the purpose of the bank taxes in question was to fix the bill's CBO scoring, so they probably would have had that desired result.

Whats the point of regulations that don't actually solve the problem which the regulation was originally intended? Aside from making the sheep think that their shepherds are actually taking care of them while lining their pockets from those they are supposed to be regulating, does this behavior help or hurt?