Denninger is again calling for a boycott of the big banks. We at Swamp Report support this 100%. The TBTF’s will not be TBTF if we move our money out of them. We however believe the boycott should be extended to at least the top 10 banks, not just the top 4. Do it today!
This is a call for a boycott.
A call to break these institutions by destroying their deposit base and “net interest margin”, one consumer at a time, as a protest against the outrageous actions these firms have taken in terms of risk and their shifting of the costs of that risk, which should have resulted in their failure and closure by The FDIC and OCC, onto the backs of their customers via outrageous fees, interest rates and costs, along with the direct subsidy being paid by all taxpayers generally.
Now The Huffington Post has picked it up and suddenly there’s a Facebook group for it too.
The idea is simple: If enough people who have money in one of the big four banks move it into smaller, more local, more traditional community banks, then collectively we, the people, will have taken a big step toward re-rigging the financial system so it becomes again the productive, stable engine for growth it’s meant to be. It’s neither Left nor Right — it’s populism at its best. Consider it a withdrawal tax on the big banks for the negative service they provide by consistently ignoring the public interest. It’s time for Americans to move their money out of these reckless behemoths. And you don’t have to worry, there is zero risk: deposit insurance is just as good at small banks — and unlike the big banks they don’t provide the toxic dividend of derivatives trading in a heads-they-win, tails-we-lose fashion.
This list provides a brief but we know, incomplete description of the corrupt deals for special treatment of SOME states for their senator’s support of the Obamacare takeover of 17% of the US economy. If these deals are not unconstitutional, we need to amend the constitution so that they are.
The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina’s attorney general said Tuesday. Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state – all Republicans – are jointly taking a look at the deal they’ve dubbed the “Nebraska compromise.” “The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution – as well as other provisions of federal law,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. McMaster’s move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina. In a letter to McMaster, Graham singled out the deal to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s vote on the massive health care bill the Senate is expected to adopt Thursday. Nelson held out as fellow Democrats worked to get 60 votes to foreclose a GOP filibuster and the bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs. “We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49,” Graham and DeMint wrote. Nebraska wasn’t alone in getting Medicaid breaks. Vermont, Louisiana and Massachusetts also got help with their programs. Along with Texas, officials in Washington, Alabama, Colorado and Michigan confirmed they were working with McMaster. North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he wasn’t sure what could be done while the federal legislation remained under debate. Officials in the other states did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile on Tuesday, Tennessee’s Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey called for his state’s attorney general to investigate the deal. Ramsey, McMaster and Michigan’s Mike Cox are running for governor in their states. “Whether in the court of law or in the court of public opinion, we must bring an end to this culture of corruption,” McMaster said. The negotiations “on their face appear to be a form of vote buying paid for by taxpayers,” he said. McMaster is encouraging a South Carolina citizen to step forward to sue to challenge the measure if it is signed into law. “We’ll assist anyone to the extent that we’re able,” McMaster said. Also Tuesday, U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said Republicans need to stop complaining about deals their colleagues made. “Rather than sitting here and carping about what Nelson got for Nebraska, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let’s get together and see what we can get for South Carolina,” Clyburn said. For instance, Clyburn expects states will get more help covering Medicaid expansion costs. Critics say the federal government’s coverage of 91 percent of those future costs will disappear, leaving states with huge holes in their budgets. Clyburn says the legislation the federal share should be 95 percent, with states picking up no more than 5 percent. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said the federal legislation is “well intended,” but called it “fundamentally flawed in the same way the stimulus efforts were in that the states and the taxpayers are left footing the bill. “Sanford this spring was the nation’s only governor to take a state legislature to federal and state court to block federal stimulus money…
Treasury secretary Timid Tim Geithner has predicted there will be no “second wave” financial crisis to follow the crisis of last year.
“We are not going to have a second wave of financial crisis,” Geithner said in an interview with National Public Radio. “We cannot afford to let the country live again with a risk that we are going to have another series of events like we had last year. That is not something that is acceptable.”
With characteristic audacity of the Obamunists, he says:
“We will do what is necessary to prevent that and that is completely within our capacity to prevent…” .
Well, with the prediction track record of the government in anticipating and predicting such events, if we believe the exact opposite of whatever the administration says we will be better off…
The Weekly Standard:
The Democrats are irresponsibly and disingenuously claiming that the bill would cost $871 billion over 10 years. But that’s not what the CBO says. Rather, the CBO says that $871 billion would be the costs from 2010 to 2019 for expansions in insurance coverage alone. But less than 2 percent of those “10-year costs” would kick in before the fifth year of that span. In its real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), the CBO says that the bill would cost $1.8 trillion — for insurance coverage expansions alone. Other parts of the bill would cost approximately $700 billion more, bringing the bill’s full 10-year tab to approximately $2.5 trillion — according to the CBO.
In those real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), Americans would have to pay over $1 trillion in additional taxes, over $1 trillion would be siphoned out of Medicare (over $200 billion out of Medicare Advantage alone) and spent on Obamacare, and deficits would rise by over $200 billion. They would rise, that is, unless Congress follows through on the bill’s pledge to cut doctors’ payments under Medicare by 21 percent next year and never raise them back up — which would reduce doctors’ enthusiasm for seeing Medicare patients dramatically.
And what would Americans get in return for this staggering sum? Well, the CBO says that health care premiums would rise, and the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product spent on health care would rise from 17 percent today to 21 percent by the end of 2019. Nationwide health care costs would be $234 billion higher than under current law. How’s that for “reform”?
Even MoveOn.org says that the bill is “a massive giveaway” to private insurance companies. The CBO estimates that, from 2015-25, private insurers would receive $1.0 trillion in subsidies from the American taxpayer — the insurers’ apparent price for giving up their freedom and being controlled by the government. Congress would mandate that Americans buy the insurers’ product and would redirect massive sums of taxpayer money to make that mandate more feasible. So, if insurance companies are your idea of a worthy object of philanthropy, then Obamacare is for you.
This Obamacare vote is a clear indicator that our country has really taken a turn for the worst. Can we undo this? Can we get these bums out of office now? Any incumbent, Republican or Democrat who voted for any two of these three measures: the .700 trillion TARP, the $.787 trillion Pork Stimulus or the $2.5 trillion Obamacare … should be removed from office.
First Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is bribed with $300 million in pork to support Obamacare, then Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas “suddenly” removes her objections. Lincoln appears to be resigned to being voted out of office and likely has cut a deal to be hired by the Obamunists once she is removed from the Senate. Landrieu is unashamed for taking the bribe for her state, but she should be, and we expect, Louisianians will increasingly be outraged. And what was the bribe Senator Nelson agreed to for Nebraska? Time will reveal this mystery. This also makes us wonder what the going state bribe will be for making Obama President for Life...$500 million, maybe $1 billion? The Obamunists don’t care how much these bribe schemes cost since it’s all newly printed money anyway and a hidden inflation tax on the American public and further, their ideology trumps all public welfare considerations.
Obama’s personal network, ABC, has an interview of Obama in which the president warns that unless we pass his health care reform bill, “the US will go bankrupt”. Well, then we will go doubly bankrupt if we DO pass it – ’cause Federal spending – and the deficit will indeed mushroom if the communist’s Obamacare becomes law. What a lowlife threat. WHEN the US goes bankrupt —we surely do hope Mr. Obama has the lack of a health care bill to blame for it.
Tech Ticker is very cynical on the Obama Administration. So too is the American public – as evidenced by the recent poll numbers. The excuse to spend until the world ends was that we need to avoid the end of the world. So now we have a choice: end of the world? or…end of the world?
A Les Leopold opinion piece in Huffpo argues we need a special 10% annual wealth tax on people who have a networth in excess of $500 million and that we need to nationalize the 19 largest banks. Hmmm… regarding the wealth tax: what about non-persons? – that is, what about for-profit and not-for-profit corporations (including labor unions and the AARP) with book values in excess of 500 million? Why should only wealthy individuals have to pay the wealth tax when these wealthy organizations manipulate Congress and society to their will as much or more so than the individuals?
And regarding nationalizing the big 19 banks: it will never happen because the federal government will have to admit to the scam it has been running over the last year. To take the big banks over and force them to break up – that is to force them to hand (say) two-thirds of their deposit liabilities over to smaller banks also requires opening up the value of the assets that these deposits have financed to public scrutiny. Then the massive yet-unrecognized losses on those assets would have to be recognized and paid by the taxpayer in one big event. So nationalization as suggested will never be chosen by the government. However, YOU can force them to make the choice they will not otherwise make – that is downsize the big banks and recognize the losses! Simply take your deposits out of the big banks and move them to your small local banks. It’s that simple. The government will have no choice but to take over the big banks and sell the banks’ bad assets for what they can get for them. Now that’s voting with your feet!