There's something terribly wrong with this whole concept.
How is it the President can impose a tax (afine fee) on responsible financial institutions that wisely and carefully shepherded their depositor's/client's money through the financial meltdown, required no TARP funds, didn't have to declare bankruptcy, nor required any other government 'help' because they were solvent and didn't get involved with the financial shenanigans? Yet the irresponsible institutions and corporations that squandered hundreds of billions of dollars get a walk and won't have to pay the fine fee?
Doesn't this send the wrong message? The President is saying, in effect, "If you do well and make money for your clients/depositors/shareholders while also providing sensible and responsible financial services we will punish you!. But if you are spendthrift and get involved with high risk financial strategies and investments and lose all of your money, will give you all the taxpayer money you need to stay afloat."
Like that will help stimulate the economy in any kind of sustainable fashion. But then, the looters never look at such things from an economic point of view. It's always about being "fair and just". But who decides what is fair and just? The looters, or course.
How is it the President can impose a tax (a
Doesn't this send the wrong message? The President is saying, in effect, "If you do well and make money for your clients/depositors/shareholders while also providing sensible and responsible financial services we will punish you!. But if you are spendthrift and get involved with high risk financial strategies and investments and lose all of your money, will give you all the taxpayer money you need to stay afloat."
Like that will help stimulate the economy in any kind of sustainable fashion. But then, the looters never look at such things from an economic point of view. It's always about being "fair and just". But who decides what is fair and just? The looters, or course.
Leave a comment