Thursday, January 14, 2010
Obama's Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee Strikes Me As Unfair and Frankly UnAmerican
First... so that we're all on the same page... please take a moment to read the full text of the President's remarks today announcing his proposal.
(Never fear... it's short - only twelve paragraphs and a "thank you" closer!)
Now... a bit of excerpting - along with commentary from yours truly --
As we all know, our country has endured the deepest recession we've faced in generations. And much of the turmoil was caused by irresponsibility on the part of banks and financial institutions.
Hmm... "banks and financial institutions" huh?
Not government? Laws and government regulations - either via their existence or their absence - had NOTHING to do with this, the deepest recession we've faced in generations?
Fed policies had NOTHING to do with creating this "perfect storm?" Artificially low interest rates decreed by the Fed coupled with the government's distortion of the mortgage finance system through the Community Reinvestment Act had NOTHING to do with creating the housing bubble...???
Really...??? REALLY...??? This is your story and you're sticking to it, Mr. President?
FOUR WORDS:
1) Fannie
2) Mae
3) Freddie
4) Mac
FOUR MORE:
1) Barney
2) Frank
3) Chris
4) Dodd
Folks... com'on... no doubt I could spend all night listing the names of private sector business and finance executives whose greed, shortsightedness, and incompetence contributed to getting us into the mess we're now in... but even the most fanatical liberal Democrat reading this is no doubt aware that the "crony" in "crony capitalism" is just as often a Democrat as a Republican, sometimes a conservative, but often a self-described liberal.
As to Obama's "us vs. them" thesis of public sector vs. private sector...
(*SIGH*)
Again... Fannie Mae... Freddie Mac... Barney Frank... Chris Dodd... government entities and "public servants" are less likely to be problem solvers than to be problem creators!
Consider the words of our nation's Demagogue-In-Chief:
Firms took reckless risks in pursuit of short-term profits and soaring bonuses, triggering a financial crisis that nearly pulled the economy into a second Great Depression...
...followed by...
Even though these firms were largely facing a crisis of their own making, their failure could have led to an even greater calamity for the country. So the Federal Reserve and other agencies took emergency measures to prevent that outcome. And the previous administration started a program - the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP - to provide these financial institutions with funds to survive the turmoil that they had helped unleash. It was a distasteful but necessary thing to do.
(Or so he claims! I don't buy it and never will. Bush was wrong in calling for the creation of TARP, and Congress, the Democrat-controlled Congress, including then Senator Obama, was wrong in going along with Bush.)
Further excerpting...
We've worked over the last year to manage this program effectively, to hold firms accountable, and to recoup as much tax money as possible. Many originally feared that most of the $700 billion in TARP money would be lost. But because of the management of this program by Secretary Geithner and my economic team, we've now recovered the majority of the funds provided to banks.
(Not really... there has been loads of slight of hand with banks and other financial actors being loaned/given government money at low or no interest only to have this money "reinvested" in Treasuries and other governmental instruments paying higher yields or appreciating in value BECAUSE of follow-up governmental actions... but for the moment we'll leave it at that.)
Obama continued...
As far as I'm concerned, however, that's not good enough. My commitment is to the taxpayer. My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed. And my determination to achieve this goal is only heightened 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.
OK. Fine. You want taxpayer funds which were loaned to private entities to be repaid - with interest. Well, so do I! So does everyone, I'm guessing! But what's any of this have to do with taxes - special "fees" - you seek to force certain private entities (including firms which didn't ask for TARP funds or were "encouraged" to accept TARP funds whether they thought they needed them or not, and in fact even including firms which TOOK NO TARP MONEY) to pay year in and year out for at least ten years and perhaps for longer than that?
Barak of Locksley (aka "Robb'n Hood"), now on a roll, continued...
We want our money back, and we're going to 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. 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.
Excuse me... one small point if I may...
Here in America - at least the America I once knew - if you loaned money to say 10 people and seven had paid you back and three still owed you money... you didn't simply demand ADDED payments from the seven who were in the clear; you sought to collect from the three who STILL owed you money!
Folks... please... understand what's happening here. Obama and his Democratic allies are not calling for the collection of unpaid debts; what the President and Democratic Members of the House and Democratic Senators are calling for is singling out firms because of the business they're in rather than what they've done or haven't done - what they've borrowed or haven't borrowed - with no regard for whether a firm owes money or has repaid all debts with interest.
Actually it's worse than that. Talk about deadbeats, incompetents, and those whose firms routinely paid out huge bonuses to their executives regardless of performance... Obama and the Dems have exempted "The Big Three" from this "fee" business; they've exempted Fannie and Freddie from this proposed "Responsibility Fee."
Folks... if that doesn't tell you all you need to know than I don't know what else to highlight. This is "group punishment" - which would be bad enough on its own - but worse... it's "SELECTIVE group punishment" seemingly based - at least partially - upon a company's or firm's political orientation and the share of "union ownership" in play.
Hey... if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
(*SHRUG*)
This is wrong, people. This is a pure shake-down - a politicized shake-down at that. It isn't fair... it isn't right.
If President Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes - individual or business taxes - then let them say so and fight for their proposals.
We live in a nation with a progressive income tax code - if President Obama feels it vital to raise taxes on business (or on individuals) let him do so in line with American ideals of fairness. If Obama seeks to raise personal/family rates across the board let him propose rate changes that effect each and every American within a certain bracket equally. As for corporate (business) taxes...
I say this: If President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry (the light skinned white man with no negro dialect) Reid feel that corporate tax rates should be raised above the current 35%... LET THEM SO PROPOSE!
If President Obama and his Partymates believe it's in the best interests of the U.S. economy for corporate rates to be raised ONLY on those companies who possess assets of over $50 billion... then let them propose raising taxes for EACH AND EVERY company/firm meeting that threshold.
The President's proposal is wrongheaded, unfair, and corrosive to the spirit of individual liberty and the Rule of Law as understood by our Founders and succeeding of Americans.
Crony Capitalism is wrong. So is Crony Socialism. Join me in rejecting both.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Join me in rejecting both.
The only way in which it has ever been different is back in the day when what you are calling "cronie capitalism" was even stronger than it is now. Socialism in this country (such as it is) would wither away if the money elites would unilaterally call off their top-down class war. Conservatism never fails to blame the victim.
* In response to my cyberbud Rodak...
Er... OK.
(*SHRUG*)
So we're agreed that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the entire revolving door crew of BOTH Democrats and Republicans who engage in what I refer to as "crony captialism" are dirtbags?
I'm not quite sure where this charge that "conservatism never fails to blame the victim" comes from - other than simply a general talking point and reflexive slur against conservatism.
I mean, are you really DISAGREEING with my sentiment that we must opposed crony capitalism as practiced by BOTH Republicans AND DEMOCRATS?
With your shot against "conservatives" were you inferring that just identifying oneself as a "Liberal" or just being involved in Democratic Party politics means that by definition liberal Democrats such as Robert Rubin, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and the like can't "really" be viewed as "corporate cronyists?"
Seriously, Rob... I'm not quite following where you're critiquing my thread post.
Feel free to take another shot at it!
(*WINK*)
BILL
I get the "blaming the victim" from the repeated assertions from the right that people who were suckered into taking on mortgages that they couldn't afford by media ad campaigns and unscrupulous lenders are the only ones at fault for their current plight.
I get the "blaming the victim" from the way the right wields the words "personal responsibility" as a weapon against any person who needs help, whether through fault of his own, or not.
I get "blaming the victim" from the practice of elements of the religious right of insisting that their every misfortune is God's punishment for their sins.
I could go on. You get the picture?
As for partisan politics, as opposed to ideological perversity, I thought I had made myself quite clear here.
QUOTING RODAK:
"...people who were suckered into taking on mortgages that they couldn't afford by media ad campaigns and unscrupulous lenders..."
You mean... er... adults?
You mean adult free citizens, those with full legal rights, those "being of sound mind and body" in the legal sense...???
Those people.
Rob. I've got an idea:
YOU wanna "bail out those people" then YOU go right ahead. Start a charity dedicated to bailing out the irresponsible.
OR...
Perhaps you could start a political movement to restrict full right of contract authority to the... er... "adults" unable to resist slick media campaigns by unscrupulous lenders.
(*SHRUG*)
Rob. I truly wish you weren't so blind, that you were able to "connect the dots" in a legal and philosophical sense so that you'd realize where your kind of thinking would take us.
Yes, Rob, true, you've always been forthright about being "an elitist," but apparently you don't carry through to acknowledge what your brand of elitism really stands for...
LACK OF FREEDOM!
Yes, Rob... take away individual responsibility and you take away individual freedom. That's the unfortunate "connection of the dots" of your political/social/economic philosophy.
The ironic thing is... you really ARE intelligent, articulate, and knowledgeable. You just have a "dot" problem.
(*WINK*)
BILL
Why don't you start a campaign to punish those who have already taken advantage of the stupid, and to put legislation in place that will keep those who might tend to want to prey on the stupid from doing so again in the future?
And in the meanwhile, thank you for so stridently illustrate my point about blaming the victim.
Of course, I suppose to be totally consistent I should chastise myself for criticizing you over being stupid enough to fall victim to the media campaign of Sarah Palin, which is much the same thing. My bad. Go sit with Ed, your sins are forgiven.
Btw, here's something your civics teacher in middle school never told you: nobody's free; there are only greater and lesser degrees of dependence on the good will of others.
QUOTING RODAK:
"Why don't you start a campaign to punish those who have already taken advantage of the stupid..."
And round and round we go.
(*SNORT*)
Rob. My whole "public" life is a campaign to "punish" those responsible for causing messes; I "punish" them by IDENTIFYING them.
(Sorry... though I wish I had the power to do more than blog about it and otherwise raise my voice there's not much more I can do.)
QUOTING RODAK:
"...thank you for so stridently illustrate my point..."
Er... umm... hmm... you're welcome...???
Rob. The word you were looking for is "LOGICALLY."
Actually... allow me to edit. What you obviously MEANT to write was, "Bill, thank you for so logically pointing out that my point was invalid."
(*WINK*)
Again... you're welcome, cyberbud!
QUOTING RODAK:
"Of course, I suppose to be totally consistent I should chastise myself for criticizing you over being stupid enough to fall victim to the media campaign of Sarah Palin, which is much the same thing."
(*HUGE FRIGG'N GRIN*) (*GUFFAW*)
See! Now THAT was not only amusing, but you're right... from the perspective of a Rodak that shot at me (and Ed) actually is logical. ("Rob logical.")
(*WINK*)
QUOTING RODAK:
"...nobody's free..."
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
In any case, Rob, my earlier observation stands: You and your philosophy are antagonistic towards both individual freedom and individual responsibility.
(*SHRUG*)
I congratulate you for having the courage to post such noxious convictions.
(*WINK*)
Hey... you know how much I admire honesty!
BILL
And you know how much I admire sarcasm.
So, will you admit that this post's bottom line is that Obama is "unAmerican?" Polly want a cracker?
Rob. This post's "bottom line" is exactly what the title states:
Obama's Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee Strikes Me As Unfair and Frankly UnAmerican.
(*SHRUG*)
Not quite sure what has you confused.
Hmm... perhaps this will help:
If the president proposing this was "President McCain"...
(*CROSSING MYSELF)
...or if President Bush had proposed such legislation during his term, I would now be (or would have been) stating the same exact opinion.
Seriously, bud... I don't know how to make it any clearer. Between my initial post and the comment thread back and forth even an English major should be able to comprehend my "bottom line."
(*WINK*)
BILL
By calling it "Obama's Financial..." you single him out to tar with that brush. Like he dreamed it up all by himself and proposed to enact it by fiat. If it is "unAmerican" then, it can only be because Obama is the embodiment of "unAmericanism." Your choice of words betrays your true intent: that's the English major and ace practitioner of textual analysis calling you by your real name. [my word verification is, btw, "mench." It knows.]
QUOTING RODAK:
"By calling it "Obama's Financial..." you single him out to tar with that brush."
(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
Rob. Have you totally lost ALL grip on reality...???
I refer to it as "Obama's Plan" because OBAMA refers to it as HIS plan.
Rob - Earth to Rob - we're talking about OBAMA'S PLAN announced via OBAMA'S SPEECH.
Re-read the transcript provided if you have any doubt. Here... allow me to provide focus:
QUOTING PRESIDENT OBAMA --
"We want our money back, and we're going to get it. And that's why I'm proposing a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to be imposed on major financial firms..."
(First two sentences, sixth paragraph btw.) (*SHRUG*)
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Anyway, Rob... (*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)... it's obvious your either uninterested or incapable of engaging in a reasonable back and forth so... another thread bites the dust.
(*WINK*)
BILL
Okay. I concede your point. But it doesn't really change mine. You are still calling Obama unAmerican by inference. In fact, that inference is more direct your way, than mine.
Rob. While I appreciate your being reasonable enough to concede one particular point, you're STILL putting the cart before the horse.
ONE MORE TIME...
Obama IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE is behaving in a "unAmerican" fashion (IMHO) not based upon WHO HE IS, but instead based upon WHAT HE'S SUPPORTING.
It is the POLICY that I find "unAmerican."
Therefore ANYONE supporting the POLICY is (again, IMHO) behaving in an "unAmerican" fashion.
Rob. We've been OVER this already.
(*SNORT*) (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE BREAKING OFF INTO A SMIRK*)
Re-read my January 19, 2010 12:02 PM post.
Jeezus... and you were an ENGLISH MAJOR...???
I myself never got "into" sentence diagramming and identifying the "parts" of speech, but I know I've made it QUITE CLEAR that the "subject" of the "unAmerican" identifier is ANYONE who supports the Obama proposal.
Now of COURSE this INCLUDES Obama because HE'S proposing the "unAmerican" proposal... but if he reverses course and denounces his own policy proposal he'll suddenly become "not guilty" of acting "in an unAmerican fashion" at least as far as this particular issue is concerned.
Am I getting through to you...???
BILL
[had to fix a crucial typo]
It is the POLICY that I find "unAmerican."
With all due respect, being "unAmerican" is NOT like being a redhead, or a misanthrope. Being unAmerican (if there is such a thing) is based precisely upon one's ideology and what POLICIES he supports based on his ideology.
I'm still not quite sure how this proposal, which, again, I'm quite sure Obama was advised to make by his economics team, is "unAmerican." It might be unPopular. It might be inEffective. It might be a lot of things, but I don't think that it is borrowed from some kind of foreign agenda. It wasn't mailed in from the Czech Republic or Venezuela.
And please don't tell me that it doesn't conform to the economic ideas of the Founding fucking Fathers, who ideas evolved in a feudal, agrarian, slave-labor plantation system, prior to the industrial revolution and the evoluation of banking as we know it.
The true definition of "unAmerican" is: doesn't think like me.
Keep digging, Rob.
(*SMILE*)
Anyway... thanks for the back and forth - always appreciated!
BILL
This is near your neck of the woods, no?
Post a Comment