Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
News Video - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8460108.stm
What's people thoughts on Obama wanting taxpayers money, $117bn, to be paid back by the Banks (including large corporations with over $50bn in assets)?
On the surface it does look like a good step forward by Obama and it makes sense when you see banks/bankers throwing bonuses around left, right and centre. And you almost wished that if our government had any bollocks they would "stick it to the bankers" and do something like this (instead of handing out cash and pushing back deadlines for repayments...). However, i think it'll end up in a vicious circle of banks increasing interest rates to make up for this "bank tax" fee and in turn screwing over the taxpayers again. Plus it seems to be a bit "pin the tail to the donkey" as he targeting companies that have $50bn+ worth of assets rather than targeting the banks/companies that are directly at fault etc....
If only it was like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7gCd-C-Tys 
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
Sounds like a good thing to me.
|
bigjim172000
Member
Registered: 3rd May 05
Location: New Buckenham, Norfolk
User status: Offline
|
what really fooking pisses me of is if we refused to pay some money back and said come back a bit later, we would be ass raped and banks would have our house etc,
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
The bankers are just being scapegoated.
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
The bankers are just being scapegoated.
Why do you think they are being scapegoated? Considering the banks were largely the ones responsible for us being in the shit and needing taxpayers/governments money to bail them out. And then they have the bollocks to pay stupidly large bonuses to each other rather than pay the repayments.
I would say that it seems that Obama and his band are generalising who needs to pay this cash back though, targetting $50bn+ corporations rather than hitting the companies directly responsible or companies that took the highest bails outs etc.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
It'll obviously come from increased fees and interest rates.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Because people relied too heavily on credit. The whole situation was very unsustainable, people were relying on house prices continually rising and not having any savings. Simply relying on assets is ridiculous. The banks did make mistakes, but the public were just as guilty, after all, it was the public who took out these sub prime loans.
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
it was the public who took out these sub prime loans.
Which were granted by banks.
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
good programme on BBC2 about Obama and the recession...
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
quote:
Originally posted by ed
it was the public who took out these sub prime loans.
Which were granted by banks.
If you bought a gun and shot somone it would be your fault and not the shopkeepers.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
You would have thought that people would learn too. Yet last month the shops were packed with people rinsing the credit cards, bashing the government and banks yet nit realizing that their life if excess was problematic. It was greed and excess that caused the rescesion from everyone, not just the bankers.
|
Jules S
Premium Member
Registered: 24th Dec 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ed
Because people relied too heavily on credit. The whole situation was very unsustainable, people were relying on house prices continually rising and not having any savings. Simply relying on assets is ridiculous. The banks did make mistakes, but the public were just as guilty, after all, it was the public who took out these sub prime loans.
That's primarily the US people/public though wasn't it?
Then the US banks offloaded all their shitty debt all around the worlds (stupid/moneygrabbing) banks and here we are now...
|
Toby
Premium Member
Registered: 29th Nov 05
User status: Offline
|
Our government cant do this anyway as they own half the banks so would be them paying out of their own pocket in essence
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Our government cant do this anyway as they own half the banks so would be them paying out of their own pocket in essence
The government have a 60% stake in RBS and 40 odd in Lloyds and true they couldn't do the same exactly, although we do have something vaguely similar as part of the APS (Asset Protection Scheme) - the banks are required to increase lending to businesses.
However, RBS/Lloyds failed to meet the £11bn/16bn (Lloyds/RBS) targets in decemeber, yet still managed to dish out bonuses 
|
