Obama administration is considering imposing a fee on banks to help recover bailout costs.

[phleshdef]

The Obama administration is considering imposing a fee on banks to help recover some of taxpayers' costs of bailing banks out from the financial crisis, according to multiple reports on Monday.

The White House said President Barack Obama wants to ensure that taxpayers are paid in full. "That's the president's goal," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. He declined to provide details on how that might be done.

Full story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100111/pl_nm/us_obama_banks_fee

[MissMillie]

1. LOL... give them a taste of their own medicine

Banks are really good w/ charging fees.

[busymom]

2. I'm sure this fee

won't be passed down to consumers in the form of higher late fees, account maintenance fees, or ATM fees or anything like that...sigh...

[high density]

3. So people will flee them toward the cheaper competitors

i.e. credit unions

[busymom]

5. if they can. n/t

[phleshdef]

7. Oh well, guess govt shouldn't charge anybody for anything ever then.

Because based on your logic, thats exactly what you are saying.

[Donnachaidh]

12. bogus response

That is *not* what was said. But your response is the typical apologist response to anyone who says anything against this administration.

It shows how out of touch this admin is, to think they can place fees on banks and they *won't* wind up coming out of the depositor's pocket, because the fee WILL be passed on.

[high density]

14. So let's ditch all regulations and taxes. Abolish the FDIC.

These costs all get passed on.

[phleshdef]

17. Its funny. The administration may hold banks financially accountable and suddenly they're against it

[high density]

22. It's maddening

I feel like suddenly I'm around a bunch of brainless Libertarians!

[busymom]

26. No...the administration

should hold every single bank accountable for every dime that goes out in CEO compensation and loans given as well as interest rates on credit cards, etc! They should regulate any bank that took money and make sure that they can't pay massive CEO salaries, bonuses, etc until the money is paid back.

[phleshdef]

28. They ARE regulating salaries for every bank that took bailout money.

Why do you think so many banks have rushed to pay back money and get out of the bailout program?

[busymom]

31. well, color me educated on this topic then!

[phleshdef]

15. Basically, yes it was what was said. But go ahead and ignore that and throw the apologist word round

It doesn't help your argument (because you basically lack one) but it sure does make you look more liberal than thou and thats all that matters right?

Actually dispute my point or move on. Based on that logic, the government should never impose a regulation on something it doesn't own because that something MIGHT hurt the consumer as a means to compensate. Thats exactly what was suggested in the concept of the post I was responding to and there is absolutely no way around that.

[DrDan]

4. and then the banks will pass on the fee to their customers

so . . . taxpayers will get "taken to the bank" twice.

somehow this suggestion does not sound sound.

[busymom]

6. That's what I just said...I don't

understand how the policymakers don't have the ability to recognize that consequence!!!

[DJ13]

10. When do the policians ever care about the consequences unless it hurts

the wealthy?

All they see is the PR they can get from claiming to be "tough" on the banks.

Our concerns dont matter.

[high density]

13. That is the same argument the Repukes use for zero taxes and regulation

All of the costs of regulation just "get passed on to the consumer." So basically what you are saying is throw up our hands and do nothing, because the banks will always find a way around it or a way to pass it on.

They need to pay for their mistakes. The fees they charge will remain competitive because, like I said, people will go elsewhere.

[phleshdef]

24. All it takes is a regulatory move by the Obama admin to turn DUers into free market evangelists!

[Zynx]

30. Do you favor repealing the corporate income tax then?

Same general idea.

[DrDan]

36. the problem with that is that if it were repealed, the prices would not drop accordingly

a new "tax" on the banks would AT LEAST raise current charges by that amount - probable much more.

[ProSense]

8. I think we should protect the banks

Why charge them a fee if it's only going to be passed down to customers?

:sarcasm:


Here the administration is proposing a charge on banks to recoup taxpayer money and immediately there are reasons why it shouldn't happen. Screw the banks.


The new rules eliminated ATM fees so they'll have to find another way, and I'm sure there are enough financial institutions that will offer more incentives to lure customers away.

[phleshdef]

11. Exactly. Based on the logic of some, we either eliminate ALL priv. business or ALL regulation.

Because according to that logic, if government doesn't take over every single business to prevent them from looking for loopholes around regulation then the regulation isn't worth imposing. Or we just don't regulate anything because its always a bad idea.

Of course in reality and the way the real world works, none of that makes sense, but that won't stop people from whining.

[TicketyBoo]

18. Really?

The new rules eliminate ATM fees?

Well, good deal. I didn't know that.

I haven't used an ATM card since fees were instituted. I'll be darned if I'm going to get socked with a fee to get MY money.

[high density]

20. I have never paid an ATM fee in my life

Use your bank's ATMs. It's one of the easiest fees to avoid.

[TicketyBoo]

25. I agree.

I just quit using ATM cards entirely when fees were introduced.

Just my tiny little rebellion. Initially, they had free ATM transactions to hook you on using the cards.

I get along fine without an ATM card, and have for many years.

As you may have guessed, I've never paid an ATM fee, either.

[busymom]

27. only works if you are in town.

I have paid fees, but only if I am out-of-state and there is no branch of my bank there.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

9. Sounds like a wise idea if banks are seeing it as a free lunch if they fail.

[NJmaverick]

16. It would be better to tax their profits and bonuses so they

can't pass the cost on to the consumer.

[phleshdef]

19. Um, they pass taxes onto the consumer all the time.

Thats why basing the wisdom of the decisions on "what if the banks do this or that" is flawed.

[Zynx]

32. Are you familiar with economic incidence of taxation?

Google "corporate income tax economic incidence". There's a lot on the subject.

[Vidar]

21. I'll believe it when I see it. Obama talks like a liberal, but acts like a banker.

[phleshdef]

23. Yea, all that community organizing and still paying off student loans until a few years ago...

...sounds like every fucking banker I know.

[jonnyblitz]

29. what a fucking STUPID response. last time I checked he was

president, not a debt ridden community organizer. I can't believe you even posted that idiocy. :rofl:

[phleshdef]

35. Yea, tellling the truth about his life background is idiocy.

Because it doesn't fit your bullshit, meritless narrative that has no place in a real discussion between intelligent adults.

Poor little you.

[shadesofgray]

33. "Considering" = weasel word.

[phleshdef]

34. No, considering = word normal people use for something that hasn't happened yet.