Home Loans and Support

Senator Boxer: Curbing Wall Street Bonuses

Discussion in 'Chase Mortgage - Tell Us Your Chase Story' started by Mercury213, Feb 10, 2010.

  1. Mercury213

    Mercury213 LoanSafe Member

    Just got this. Can't wait to see where this thread goes.

    February 10, 2010

    Dear Friend:

    I want to let you know about the Taxpayer Fairness Act (S.2994), which Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and I recently introduced in the Senate. Our bill would impose a tax on large bonuses paid by Wall Street banks and other firms that benefited from billions of dollars of taxpayer assistance in 2009.

    Last year, to avert a financial collapse, taxpayers saved a number of companies that were considered “too big to fail.†It is outrageous that these companies are now doling out millions of dollars in bonuses while the rest of America feels the pain of their reckless decisions.

    The Taxpayer Fairness Act levies a 50 percent taxpayer fairness fee on any bonus in excess of $400,000 paid by firms that took $5 billion or more in TARP funds. Only bonuses received in 2009 would be affected, since this was a year when the very survival of these institutions depended on government support. The revenues generated would be used to reduce the deficit or to help the nation recover from the recession.

    Although the reckless behavior of major Wall Street firms helped lead to the financial crisis, they have benefited greatly from the response to that crisis. Today we face an enormous budget challenge rooted in the economic impact of the financial crisis. We should ask the most highly paid employees of those institutions to pay their fair share in helping us meet this challenge.

    The Taxpayer Fairness Act is a reasonable, common-sense bill. At a time when so many American families are struggling, it is only fair to ask those who are benefiting from exorbitant bonuses to help pay back the taxpayers whose assistance made their very survival possible.

    Sincerely,

    Barbara Boxer
    United States Senator
  2. Jillian118

    Jillian118 LoanSafe Member

    Ok let me get this straight.... so they took our taxes and bailed out wall street.

    Now they want to spend more of our taxes to fight to tax the big wigs at 50% of their bonuses of 2009 (which i am assuming since it is 2010 they have already recieved)...so this would be a bit of an ex post facto kinda thing? Not sure of the legalities of that or the issue of those that perhaps paid back TARP funds in '09 but anyway im getting ahead of myself...

    Then...they are going to take that money and let the government use it to help the deficit and the country as a whole to recover from the recession....which is what the original theory behind tarp was, right??

    I think this is the funniest 5 paragraphs I have read all day and a nice little concentric circle....
  3. Mercury213

    Mercury213 LoanSafe Member

    Pretty much. Although some 2009 bonuses were just announced last week and many have not been paid yet. This is for 2009 bonuses only and 2010 (tax year) bonuses will not be affected. I'm for anything that makes Dimon $8M less rich.

    I don't see what the cost of them fighting for this tax is, unless we have to pay Boxer to travel to NYC to get on TV to shill for it.
  4. AzGryffindor

    AzGryffindor LoanSafe Member

    I'm all for taxing the heck out of the banksters (although I'd prefer jail time for all of them in lieu).

    They were given the TARP funds to start lending to small business and homeowners. Instead they paid themselves big fat bonuses that they did not earn.
  5. Mercury213

    Mercury213 LoanSafe Member

    Here's the last action on this bill. You can read the whole bill, too, if you're inclined -not me.

    Feb 4th Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

    Updates can be seen at S.2994: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on excessive 2009 bonuses... OpenCongress
  6. Mercury213

    Mercury213 LoanSafe Member

    And here's that Committee :sigh: Finance
    I would like to see some popcorn-worthy hearing on CSPAN.
  7. ManicMangaManiac

    ManicMangaManiac LoanSafe Member

    I totally agree with you, Azy, but what we all need in order to put those fat pigs in jail is our very own Deep Throat, a disgruntled Wall Street insider who's got a conscience, to blow the whistle on his or her peers and their secretive, shady backroom schemes. Someone who's got real moxie, integrity, fearlessness and a strong moral compass to blast this whole dirty mess out of the shadows and into the bright lights. That is what we need!

    Sally
  8. sabre

    sabre Guest

    She's a piece of work.

    She berated a decorated war vetreran in front of congress demanding she be called "Senator" instead of ma'am.

    Her condescending tone was so far out of line it was not even funny.

    YouTube - Senator Barbara Boxer: "Don't Call Me Ma'am" - General Michael Walsh
  9. Mercury213

    Mercury213 LoanSafe Member

    Yeah. Both of our seemingly permanent Senators are useless and often just BAD.
  10. roughyear

    roughyear LoanSafe Member

    Can't stand Boxer.. Never liked her from the beginning... She's arrogant and treats others with contempt and condescension... I hope Californians have finally seen the light and will be showing her and the corrupt feinstein the door as soon as possible....

    I really could care less what kind of bonuses these people pay their management.. I would rather see our elected officials spend their time and effort making sure that the banks aren't ruining the consumers lives.....

    What some suit gets paid is way down there on my list of 'give a damns'
  11. AzGryffindor

    AzGryffindor LoanSafe Member

    You should give a damn. How do you think the bankers make these huge bonuses? It's off the backs of the taxpayers.....you know, those of us who gave them the TARP money?

    These are the same banks that will charge you a $38.00 overdraft fee for being one cent short on your account rather than declining the sale because it makes them loads of money.

    The same banks that have rate jacked people's credit cards for no good reason! How can it be justified to raise someone's credit card rate from let's say 12% all the way to 29.99%?

    I could go on and on but the point I'm trying to make is that the bonuses they make are insane and paid for off the backs of hard working Americans. What did they really do to earn them?
  12. Mercury213

    Mercury213 LoanSafe Member

    Me too. That would entail regulation which is more "big government."

    When they convene an investigation to do just that, you call it a dog and pony show.
  13. Jillian118

    Jillian118 LoanSafe Member

    There are many tentacles to this mess and it seems the further that you dig into it....the more you find that all these people either all know each other, are related, have worked together, been bought out then replaced as a high ranking official with the new company...

    It is endless, it makes my head hurt, and there is not enough hours in the day for me to actually learn about it fully
  14. Mercury213

    Mercury213 LoanSafe Member

    Campaign builds to include new consumer protection agency in financial reform


    By Brady Dennis
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, February 11, 2010

    With a proposed overhaul of financial regulations facing stiff headwinds in the Senate, consumer advocates have redoubled their efforts to portray opponents as favoring big banks over the interests of ordinary Americans.

    The latest offensive centers on the most divisive piece of the pending legislation: the proposal for a new agency to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other such products from abuses by lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is a key element of the Obama administration's blueprint for financial reform and was included in a House bill that passed in December with support only from Democrats.

    The financial industry, along with many Republicans, has depicted the proposed agency as unnecessary and expensive, while consumer groups call it essential to preventing the kinds of abuses that contributed to the current crisis.

    Cue the latest round of conference calls, news releases and ads:

    "This is a classic choice that members of Congress and the Senate have," Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said on a call Tuesday, speaking along with several other state attorneys general in support of the new consumer agency. "Senators have to ask themselves: 'Whose side am I on? Am I on the side of the public, or am I on the side of big banks?' "

    Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and architect of the proposal for the new agency, wrote a Wall Street Journal commentary this week in which she said Wall Street executives "might have had some thoughtful suggestions for how to better shape a consumer agency. Instead, they have unleashed lobbyists who are determined to do anything to kill the consumer agency."
    ad_icon

    And a television ad unveiled last week by Americans United for Change compared big bankers to "pigs at the trough."

    Heather Booth, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform, said that the advocacy campaign has reached a critical moment and that more such efforts are on the way.

    She and other advocates want a stand-alone agency, though it is increasingly likely that any new consumer-protection regulator would reside within an existing government body, such as the Treasury Department. But they remain adamant that the regulator must remain independent, with the power to write and enforce new rules and a dedicated source of funding. They also want individual states to be able to impose laws that go beyond federal standards, an idea that big banks have fought vehemently.

    "The real test is, does it rein in the reckless behavior of the big banks?" Booth said. "And if it doesn't, it's not reform we would support."

    Thus far, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has remained committed to giving the new regulator the kind of autonomy its supporters view as vital. But to win Senate approval for sweeping financial reform legislation, he will need some support from Republicans, who have argued that the same federal agency assigned to supervise the financial health of lenders should also oversee consumer protection.

    Meanwhile, the financial industry has poured months of effort and millions of dollars into advertisements, political contributions and lobbying efforts, with the goal of shaping the legislation and killing elements they say would stifle innovation and increase the cost of business.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, has spent millions of dollars on a campaign to label the proposed agency as a massive bureaucracy and a threat to small businesses.

    In addition, Republican political consultant Frank Luntz wrote a memo last month advising opponents of the pending legislation to depict it as filled with bank bailouts, lobbyist loopholes and additional layers of government bureaucracy. He concluded with a handy guide of "words to use." They include "bloated bureaucracy," "big bank bailout bill," "wasteful Washington spending" and "unintended consequences."

    Dodd plans to present a version of the legislation to committee members later this month.
  15. Jillian118

    Jillian118 LoanSafe Member

    This isn't frigging red rover here...How about being on the side of doing the right thing????
  16. Chased around and around

    Chased around and around LoanSafe Member

    I hate to say it but out here on the Left Coast, the sheep follow their lib professional politicians til the day they die. They could careless how much of a corrupt welfare state we have become...
  17. Mercury213

    Mercury213 LoanSafe Member

    That's a pretty broad statement. I'm in CA and have "liberal" views on some things, "conservative" views on others. There are many, many like me. I do not vote along party lines til the day I die and do certainly care about corruption and "welfare." I am not a sheep and resent that statement. I do object to corporate welfare, do you?

    I think you need to define "welfare state" as it has many interpretations. Do you mean that the gov't should not assist the poor and less fortunate than you?

    If so, what do you propose we do with them? What do we do with people who cannot find jobs because there are no jobs? What do we do with people who cannot get health care because they have been priced out of it? What should we do with the disabled? Really, what do we do with those millions of people?
  18. roughyear

    roughyear LoanSafe Member

    Not true.. 'regulation' (refereeing' is actually the govts 'job'... Unfortunately, they are not content with that, they also want to own the teams...

    And I call it a 'dog and pony showy' not because they are investigating for the purpose of 'regulating' but instead for deminzng their 'enemy' so that they can try and convince the public that the other guys are worse than them.. IOW, it's all about 'the party'.. If they actually did something for 'us' then it would not be a dog and pony show....
  19. roughyear

    roughyear LoanSafe Member


    Actually, recent polls are showing that voters may have finally had enough of Boxer (hurray!)... I think it was that dressing down of the general that finally pushed even the liberal base over the edge with her...
  20. roughyear

    roughyear LoanSafe Member


    I'm all for them paying themselves whatever they want.. As long as they earned their money honestly and they earned it themselves.. What do I care how a company disperses it's profits..

    What I 'do' have a problem with is that they are being allowed and even enabled by the govt (that is supposed to protect 'us' from 'them') to get that money 'dishonestly'.. and 'that' is where I'd prefer the govt focus it's time...

    One thing I am 'definitely' against, is the govt using 'taxes' as a tool for 'punishment'.. That is a dangerous precedent that will one day be used against 'us'... and already is on an ever increasing basis...

Share This Page

COMPANY LINKS

TESTIMONIALS

"Hello Moe, I just wanted to tell you, your website has saved my life (literally), I stumbled on your site in the middle of losing my home, I was able to network with people going through the same thing as I am. I didn't feel alone anymore, I have tried to give back and counsel those that haven't walked in my shoes yet. We hear so much about what is wrong with America, I just wanted you to know, you are whats "right" with America."

Nina Mitchell
Loansafe & MoeSeo Inc. © 2014 | LoanSafe.org is not a bank, lender, mortgage broker, law firm or affiliated with the US Government. Privacy Policy