American Bankers Assoc CEO warns Obama that new tax on banks "will decrease their ability to lend"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Bank Lobby Ready To Battle New Fee



WASHINGTON -- Targeting an industry whose political deafness has vexed his administration, President Barack Obama is weighing a levy aimed at recovering tax dollars from government-rescued financial institutions.

"Lobbyists for bankers, taken by surprise, immediately objected to any new tax," the New York Times reported on Tuesday.

They said financial institutions had been repaying their portion of the bailout money in full, with interest. Losses from the $700 billion bailout fund -- estimated to run as high as $120 billion -- are expected to come from the automobile companies and their finance arms, the insurance giant American International Group and programs to avert home foreclosures, and the president is aiming to recoup that money.

"It is perplexing to us," said Edward L. Yingling, president and chief executive of the American Bankers Association. He recalled that Mr. Obama recently had two White House meetings with bankers to urge them to provide more loans to credit-starved small businesses. But a tax, he said, would be "a hit on banks that will decrease their ability to lend."

But the industry's objections carry less weight at a time when Mr. Obama is under intense pressure to crack down on Wall Street. In coming days, big banks are expected to begin announcing huge bonuses for their top executives and traders. A bipartisan commission charged with reporting on the causes of the financial crisis will begin a two-day hearing on Wednesday with testimony from the heads of four big banks: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America. Meanwhile, industry opposition continues to stymie the president's initiative in Congress to tighten regulations.

The proposed levy could put Obama on the popular side of public opinion that is decidedly against Wall Street and angry over shortfalls in a $700 billion bank bailout fund.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/bank-lobby-ready-to-battl_n_419896.html

[RockaFowler]

1. They're not loaning now

What will be any difference

[Laelth]

8. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[OHdem10]

16. What a joke? They are not lending now.

[amborin]

30. just more bankster b.s. such scammers!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

25. Yep...that was my immediate reaction.

I assumed it would be the immediate response to my post as well, so I didn't make the comment when posting.

I met with a potential client last week who declined doing business with me (creating a Website for him) on the basis that he is not receiving the expansion loans he needs from the bank because they are not lending.

He said that five years ago, if he walked into any bank and just gave his name (this is a family-owned business in operation since 1905), they would have "opened up a suitcase full of cash and said take all you need."

:patriot:

[lsewpershad]

42. iF THEY DON'T LEND WHAT WILL DO WITH THE MONEY

shove it up thier asses?

[ck4829]

2. Maybe if you didn't hand out so many bonuses, a new tax wouldn't be such a bother, huh?

[KansDem]

3. "...a hit on banks that will decrease their ability to lend."

:spray:
They really do think they're talking to children out here!...:rofl:

[InkAddict]

4. Why doesn't the tax decrease their ability to give bonuses? n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

5. They already don't lend money

Getting TARP money was suppose to unfreeze the credit market. Small businesses were suppose to be able to get loans, but that's not what is happening. They're like insurance companies. Insurance companies deny care to maximize profits. Banks don't lend money and instead use it to pay out bonuses. Where is Congress? Where is the bank regulation?

[Joanne98]

6. BWHAHAHAHA!

[Vincardog]

7. Maybe we should just let the IRS collect 99% of everything they make over the first Million?

[napi21]

9. Well, they CLD always take a little llower bonus ya know! n/t

[NJmaverick]

10. That's why I favor a tax on profits and bonuses

[Romulox]

13. The President ran the clock out on *that* idea last Spring. nt

[rucky]

11. Veiled threat.

How many times are we going to fall for it?

[NJmaverick]

12. "veiled"? Seems to me it's pretty much an out in the open plain old threat

[rucky]

15. Well, yeah.

But the wording gives fodder for free marketeers to present it as a cause/effect rather than a threat. When they respond like this to any proposed regulation or tax, enough people & media tend to take it on face-value.

[NJmaverick]

20. agreed

[flyarm]

35. People aren't taking it on face value anymore! look at some polls out there for dems!

Not so good..and just wait till the unions say..enough! which is coming quickly!

[flyarm]

29. In Plain sight.......and we keep being taken for fools! eom

[Romulox]

14. Prediction: banks will get their way.

Any tax will be entirely symbolic.

[harun]

34. They always get their way because the own the Senate and can stop

anything there.

[Skidmore]

17. Whoa, baby, let's just flip this thing on its head for these stupid, greedy suckers.

Will it affect their ability to give bonuses? These bastards deserve to lose business. If enough people abandon the mega banks, they may just get the message.

[EnviroBat]

18. Fuck the banks. I just closed a credit card account this mornign.

It feels really good to tell them to take the 22.9% interest rate and shove it up their ass.

[northernlights]

19. ooohhhh noes!!!!!

:scared:

um...wait....banks might not lend? This is a threat? :shrug:

[marmar]

21. The mob would be envious of the banksters' shakedown tactics......

:argh:

[sui generis]

22. I'm a member - so from the inside:

You wouldn't believe the panic mongering these fools do.

Every e-mail, circular, magazine, that details the net effect of oversight categorizes it as inhibitory to business, and too expensive to do.

It's quite adolescent.

[L0oniX]

23. Excuse me while I LOL.

[HughBeaumont]

24. "Bottom Line: You don't Install Our Plutonomy, We WILL."

Is it 1933 yet?

[cascadiance]

26. NO! It SHOULD descrease execs ability to STEAL more money from us!

Stop the bonus gravy train NOW!!!!

But perhaps a better way of making sure this happens is to tax these bastards directly by rolling back the Reagan tax cuts!

[DisgustedInMN]

27. Administration capitulation...

... in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[flyarm]

37. oh that was all a done deal..they give each other their talking points!

and any minute..5,4,3,2,1 the apologists will be here with the new talking point..and try their intimidation childish ploys!

[flyarm]

28. WTF are they lending now?????? nada! what a joke! eom

[Froward69]

31. Horseshit straight from the

bankers mouths... they aren't lending now. it seems they are looking for reasons to not lend anyway.

[jtrockville]

32. The same folks who couldn't decide between 7 or 8 digit bonuses?

[notadmblnd]

33. So now the banks are comming right out in the open and making threats?

They're already not loaning money, how will it hurt?

[harun]

36. They'll just use this as the excuse why they won't lend.

[EOTE]

38. Yet hundreds of billions in tax payer money didn't increase their ability to lend.

So just what WILL increase their ability to lend? Do we need to coyly bat our eyes in front of them, maybe show a little leg?

[flyarm]

39. today in my area SW Florida the news said ..record low of housing starts..record low..

so pleaseeeeeeee..who is getting any f'ing loans???????????

and on my local news right now a man from Orlando is saying how there is nothing being done to help people find jobs!

[fascisthunter]

40. so full of shit

[Triana]

41. Extortion. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

43. No problem, we'll just nationalize the industry

Don't talk much guff about it either or we'll raid your accounts and send you to jail.

[applegrove]

44. LOL!