I am not quite clear where Obama is on much. Perhaps it is the fact he has not held a press conference in over 6 months, but has spent considerable time during that period playing golf. Perhaps it is because he doesn't know what he is doing and quickly realized he was out of his league, BUT he can't tell the people they made a mistake. He can't change history and slink back into community organizing, he has to, as we all do, live up to our obligations whether we feel we can or not.
Obama gave himself a B+ was it, or an A- as a grade for his first year. Apparently the American people feel differently.
Majority Would Vote Against Obama
January 14, 2010 9:15 AM
By Reid Wilson
A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the '12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.
The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.
Obama's first year in office has been marked by an unemployment rate that surged to 10%, an increased commitment of troops to Afghanistan and a health care battle that has taken a serious political toll on the WH.
Obama's approval rating is down to 47%, the poll showed, a 14-point drop since the April survey. 45% disapprove, up 17 points from April. Only 41% say they trust Obama more than Congressional GOPers, while 33% pick the GOP over the WH. That 8-point gap is down from a 21-point edge Obama sported as recently as Sept.
Just 34% say the country is moving in the right direction, down 13 points since April, and 55% say it is off on the wrong track, up 13 points over the same period.
But as GOPers focus on taxes and spending, that message seems to be causing Obama the most harm. Among those who believe Obama's policies have moved the country in the wrong direction, 45% cite spending and government regulation as a top cause for their opposition.
Meanwhile, those who think Obama's policies are moving the country down the right track largely cite long-term benefits of his initiatives.
In the meantime, health care legislation is by no means popular, but a majority of Americans don't oppose the legislation yet. 44% said they support the legislation under consideration, down 5 points from the last poll in Sept., while 46% oppose it.
The poll, conducted by Financial Dynamics, surveyed 1,200 adults between Jan. 3-7 for a margin of error of +/- 2.8%.
He is anxious, and when presidents get anxious, they tend to make mistakes. Anxious = frustrated and seemingly pushed into a corner.
He is wielding a big stick now. TARP funds - intended to aid homeowners, never fully ended up helping many. We have record foreclosures. So instead the money went to auto and banking. Now Obama wants to recoup some of that money to help with his multi-trillion dollars deficits.
The PROBLEM with taxing the banks is ........
AP source: Obama seeking tax on biggest banks
Jan 14, 2010. 6:00 AM (ET)
By JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Mindful of soaring deficits and an anti-Wall Street mood, President Barack Obama wants a new 10-year tax on the country's largest banks to cover a projected $117 billion shortfall in the government's financial crisis bailout fund.
The president planned to propose Thursday a levy of 15 basis points, or 0.15 percent, on the liabilities of large financial institutions to make sure every dollar spent from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue Wall Street firms, auto companies and mortgage holders is either repaid or paid for. Congress would have to approve the tax.
A senior administration official said the tax, which officials are calling a "financial crisis responsibility fee," would apply only to financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion. Those firms - estimated to amount to about 50 institutions - would have to pay the fee even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most others already paid back their government infusions.
The official said banks could pay for the tax by tapping their generous executive bonus pools. The administration official described the plan on the condition of anonymity because it had not been officially announced.
At issue is the net cost of TARP, the fund initiated by the Bush administration to help financial institutions get rid of toxic assets. The fund has since evolved, helping not only the banking sector, but also autos and homeowners.
Insurance conglomerate American International Group, the largest beneficiary with nearly $70 billion in bailouts, would have to pay the tax. But General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, whose $66 billion in government loans are not expected to be fully repaid, would not be subject to a tax.
Bankers did not hide their objections.
"Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., told reporters even before details of the tax were known.
"It would be very hard for the industry to pay for the auto companies," Dimon added. "I mean, at one point you have to be a little fair."
The plan serves Obama in two ways - it capitalizes on public antipathy toward banks blamed for causing the crisis, and it addresses a desire to show progress toward reducing record federal deficits.
The administration official said Obama wanted to accelerate a requirement in the existing TARP law that requires the president to seek a way to recoup unrecovered money in 2013, five years after the law was enacted.
The administration is also rejecting Dimon's argument that banks should not pay for shortfalls from the auto industry. The official said the thinking is that major financial institutions were both a significant cause of the crisis and major beneficiaries of the government's rescue efforts and should thus bear the brunt of the cost.
For banks, the official said, the tax would not affect their biggest liability - insured deposits, which already are assessed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
The bank levy would generate an estimated $90 billion over 10 years. It could remain in place longer, however, if needed to eliminate the shortfall. The official said that if the shortfall was eliminated within a decade, the tax would still remain in place for the full 10-year minimum.
Banks have been paying back their infusions. Any shortfall would probably come from money used to prop up AIG, to support GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy protection and to assist homeowners with their mortgages.
So far, the Treasury has given $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion has been repaid and banks have paid an additional $11 billion in interest and dividends.
In Congress, the idea was receiving a predictable partisan reaction, with Democrats embracing it and Republicans rejecting it.
"Look, the financial institutions collectively, particularly the larger ones, caused problems by their errors - their errors of judgment, their irresponsibility, in some cases their skating around dishonesty," said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass.
"I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the industry that, A, caused these problems more than any other and, B, benefited from the activity, should be contributing," he said.
Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a member of Frank's committee, ridiculed the idea. "To think that banks will loan more money if you tax them is beyond economic ignorance," he said.
...... the banks will raise fees and costs to the customers! The BANK will not absorb the loss, WE WILL. A tax on the American people without raising taxes. : )
Obama
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments