Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Everytime Obama tries to Brag about how he's Lowered Taxes...think about this and many other fees/charges that have gone up...
Ready for A Debit Card Tax?
Use a debit card? Now it's really going to cost you. Bank of America announced last week that it will begin charging customers $5 per month for use of their debit cards. But if you're looking for someone to blame, set your sights on Washington.
Bank of America is imposing the new fee in anticipation of a $2 billion annual loss brought about by the "Durbin Amendment" -- a provision of last year's Dodd-Frank Wall Street financial reform bill.
Signed into law in July 2010, the measure was intended to protect America from another financial meltdown, but in reality it placed a boatload of new burdens on financial institutions and their customers. The results? Increased risks to the financial system, increased regulations, and in this case, increased costs to anyone who uses a debit card.
Under the Durbin Amendment--named for its backer Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)--the federal government now limits the amount of money banks can charge merchants when you swipe your debit card, costing them an estimated $6.6 billion per year in revenue. Rather than recoup their costs from merchants, banks are looking to consumers to pay the bill.
Enter Bank of America's new fee. But they're not alone. Wells Fargo expects to lose $1 billion, prompting it to adopt a $3 fee for debit cards in some areas. JPMorgan Chase is also rolling out new fees, as is Citibank. Smaller banks are getting into the game, too, as the Associated Press reports. Atlanta-based SunTrust recently instituted a $5 debit card fee, while Regions Financial in Birmingham, Alabama, will begin charging a $4 fee next month. In Texas, International Bancshares has announced last week the closure of 55 branches in grocery stores and the loss of 500 jobs.
Heritage's Diane Katz explains that free debit cards aren't the only things to disappear under the new law. Katz writes that a study fromBankrate.com found that the proportion of free checking accounts (of the non-interest variety) has fallen this year to 45 percent from 65 percent in 2010 and 76 percent two years ago. According to the 2011 Checking Account Survey, the number of free accounts "is likely to drop further as banks and their customers adjust to recent regulatory changes in banking." And, Katz says, those who can least afford it will pay the price:
The new fees will hit lower-income families the hardest. That’s because banks often exempt premium accounts from user fees to nurture more profitable customers. Faced with higher fees, some cash-strapped consumers will migrate to credit cards—if they can qualify. More stringent regulations have tightened the availability of credit while also increasing interest rates and fees.
In typical populist fashion, Senator Durbin sold his amendment as consumer-friendly. But any regulation that increases consumer costs and raises consumer debt is inherently anti-consumer and economically destructive.
Bank of America is already seeing a backlash from its decision. Its stock dropped by more than 3.5 percent on Friday, and its website was hit with outages and glitches over the weekend (drawing speculation of attacks by disgruntled hackers). But that anger should be directed at Washington, which passed the regulations leading to the Durbin tax. And there's one thing Congress can and should do to solve the problem: repeal it.
Use a debit card? Now it's really going to cost you. Bank of America announced last week that it will begin charging customers $5 per month for use of their debit cards. But if you're looking for someone to blame, set your sights on Washington.
Bank of America is imposing the new fee in anticipation of a $2 billion annual loss brought about by the "Durbin Amendment" -- a provision of last year's Dodd-Frank Wall Street financial reform bill.
Signed into law in July 2010, the measure was intended to protect America from another financial meltdown, but in reality it placed a boatload of new burdens on financial institutions and their customers. The results? Increased risks to the financial system, increased regulations, and in this case, increased costs to anyone who uses a debit card.
Under the Durbin Amendment--named for its backer Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)--the federal government now limits the amount of money banks can charge merchants when you swipe your debit card, costing them an estimated $6.6 billion per year in revenue. Rather than recoup their costs from merchants, banks are looking to consumers to pay the bill.
Enter Bank of America's new fee. But they're not alone. Wells Fargo expects to lose $1 billion, prompting it to adopt a $3 fee for debit cards in some areas. JPMorgan Chase is also rolling out new fees, as is Citibank. Smaller banks are getting into the game, too, as the Associated Press reports. Atlanta-based SunTrust recently instituted a $5 debit card fee, while Regions Financial in Birmingham, Alabama, will begin charging a $4 fee next month. In Texas, International Bancshares has announced last week the closure of 55 branches in grocery stores and the loss of 500 jobs.
Heritage's Diane Katz explains that free debit cards aren't the only things to disappear under the new law. Katz writes that a study fromBankrate.com found that the proportion of free checking accounts (of the non-interest variety) has fallen this year to 45 percent from 65 percent in 2010 and 76 percent two years ago. According to the 2011 Checking Account Survey, the number of free accounts "is likely to drop further as banks and their customers adjust to recent regulatory changes in banking." And, Katz says, those who can least afford it will pay the price:
The new fees will hit lower-income families the hardest. That’s because banks often exempt premium accounts from user fees to nurture more profitable customers. Faced with higher fees, some cash-strapped consumers will migrate to credit cards—if they can qualify. More stringent regulations have tightened the availability of credit while also increasing interest rates and fees.
In typical populist fashion, Senator Durbin sold his amendment as consumer-friendly. But any regulation that increases consumer costs and raises consumer debt is inherently anti-consumer and economically destructive.
Bank of America is already seeing a backlash from its decision. Its stock dropped by more than 3.5 percent on Friday, and its website was hit with outages and glitches over the weekend (drawing speculation of attacks by disgruntled hackers). But that anger should be directed at Washington, which passed the regulations leading to the Durbin tax. And there's one thing Congress can and should do to solve the problem: repeal it.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Hypocritical Obama....Once again what bad behavior for his opponents is OK for him...
Obama is nothing BUT Hypocritical....this is the SAME guy that followed Jimmy Hoffa Jr. a couple of weeks ago on stage after Hoffa virtually threatened Republicans with uncivil language and action and Mr. Obama did nothing OTHER than say he honored Hoffas support. Mr Obama you are NOT the example of a good Commander in Chief...in fact you are a pretty poor one.
Obama fires at Santorum, GOP field: A ‘Commander-in-Chief’ would have defended ‘booed’ gay soldier
Published: Updated: 11:53 AM 10/02/2011 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
Speaking at the Human Rights Campaign’s 15th annual national dinner on Saturday, President Barack Obama jabbed at the Republican presidential field’s on-stage non-response to the booing of an openly gay soldier during the last debate.
‘We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the President of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed,” Obama said to applause. “We don’t believe in that. We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens.”
“We don’t believe in them being silent since [then],” Obama continued. “You want to be Commander-in-Chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient.”
The GOP debate audience booed openly gay soldier Stephen Hill, after moderators played his video question for Republican candidates: “My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?”
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum answered Hill’s question, saying he’d reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military,” Santorum said, adding that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal is “playing social experimentation with our country.”
“Leave it alone, keep it to yourself, whether you are a heterosexual or a homosexual,” Santorum added.
Though none of the candidates openly condemned the booing on stage when it happened, Santorum appeared the follow day on Fox News with Megyn Kelly and denounced it. Santorum also said he didn’t hear the boos, and would have condemned them on stage had he heard them.
“I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier,” Santorum said the next day, according to The Washington Post. “I have to admit I seriously did not hear those boos. … But certainly had I, I would have said, ‘Don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.’”
Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse did not respond to an email from TheDC asking if President Obama believed Santorum was lying when he said he couldn’t hear the boos.
Obama fires at Santorum, GOP field: A ‘Commander-in-Chief’ would have defended ‘booed’ gay soldier
Published: Updated: 11:53 AM 10/02/2011 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
Speaking at the Human Rights Campaign’s 15th annual national dinner on Saturday, President Barack Obama jabbed at the Republican presidential field’s on-stage non-response to the booing of an openly gay soldier during the last debate.
‘We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the President of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed,” Obama said to applause. “We don’t believe in that. We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens.”
“We don’t believe in them being silent since [then],” Obama continued. “You want to be Commander-in-Chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient.”
The GOP debate audience booed openly gay soldier Stephen Hill, after moderators played his video question for Republican candidates: “My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?”
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum answered Hill’s question, saying he’d reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military,” Santorum said, adding that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal is “playing social experimentation with our country.”
“Leave it alone, keep it to yourself, whether you are a heterosexual or a homosexual,” Santorum added.
Though none of the candidates openly condemned the booing on stage when it happened, Santorum appeared the follow day on Fox News with Megyn Kelly and denounced it. Santorum also said he didn’t hear the boos, and would have condemned them on stage had he heard them.
“I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier,” Santorum said the next day, according to The Washington Post. “I have to admit I seriously did not hear those boos. … But certainly had I, I would have said, ‘Don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.’”
Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse did not respond to an email from TheDC asking if President Obama believed Santorum was lying when he said he couldn’t hear the boos.
"Super Committee"...Doomed to be a Train Wreck!
That's Fine...all the Republicans have to do is say they want to discuss spending cuts first and only spending cuts...and then this "super committee" will become the train wreck it was always going to be.
The ONLY changes in taxes they should be discussing is a TOTAL reform of the tax code reducing individual and corporate rates and doing away with loopholes...
Democrats push tax hikes first in deficit talks
By Richard Cowan and Tim Reid WASHINGTON | Sat Oct 1, 2011 5:50pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats want tax hikes to be the first item negotiated in "super committee" deficit-reduction talks, trying to force Republicans to confront an issue at the heart of this year's budget fights, sources told Reuters.
The tough stance by Democratic members of the powerful 12-member congressional panel reflects the party's wariness that Republicans might try to sideline the issue of revenue increases in the negotiations.
"They've raised the idea of doing taxes first," a Republican aide involved in the discussions said on Friday on condition of anonymity.
The panel has the task of finding ways of cutting the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If it fails to agree on a plan by November 23, automatic spending cuts will be triggered, beginning in 2013.
If Democrats hold firm to their demand for taxes to be discussed first, that could make it hard for the committee to make the tight November deadline. Congress is due to vote on the panel's recommendations by December 23.
Another congressional aide, who also did not want to be identified, confirmed that among Democrats, "there is an effort to try to discuss revenues" now.
During the super committee's initial closed-door meetings, "Republicans wanted to just talk about spending cuts and Democrats said, 'No,'" the aide said.
Republicans strongly oppose tax hikes, arguing they will hurt an anemic economic recovery. But they have not ruled out closing some tax loopholes as part of tax reform. Democrats, including President Barack Obama, insist revenue increases must be part of any deficit reduction deal.
Democrats' calls for increasing taxes on the rich may have been bolstered by a new Congressional Research Service analysis. The September 23 report obtained by Reuters concluded that letting decade-old tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of next year as scheduled "could help reduce budget deficits in the short term without stifling the economic recovery."
Discussing taxes first would also be a switch from the negotiating tactics employed in earlier talks.
In the summer debt talks between the White House and congressional leaders, the strategy was to try first to agree on what were perceived to be less controversial issues, such as domestic spending cuts. Those talks ultimately broke down amid disagreements over taxes.
NO AGREEMENT YET ON WHERE TO START
A third congressional aide with knowledge of the super committee's discussions told Reuters the six Democratic panel members were "not completely unified on their approach."
The aide said that while some of the Democrats were willing to work on less controversial items now, others thought tax increases should take priority.
If Democrats insist on tackling tax increases first, that is "problematic" given the November 23 deadline, the aide said.
The Republican aide involved in the discussions said the deficit talks were still at an early stage. "They're going through the minutiae of everything that is possible (for government savings). It's an inventory phase."
There is "no agreement on what will be negotiated first," the aide added.
Budget and tax specialists in the private sector are predicting arduous negotiations that could end with a partial deal at best in which the committee agrees on some savings, with the balance achieved by the automatic spending cuts.
Failure by the committee to agree on a comprehensive deficit reduction deal could lead to a further downgrade of the stellar government credit rating, a move that in turn could damage a global economy struggling to right itself after a deep recession.
(Editing by Ross Colvin and Peter Cooney.)
The ONLY changes in taxes they should be discussing is a TOTAL reform of the tax code reducing individual and corporate rates and doing away with loopholes...
Democrats push tax hikes first in deficit talks
By Richard Cowan and Tim Reid WASHINGTON | Sat Oct 1, 2011 5:50pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats want tax hikes to be the first item negotiated in "super committee" deficit-reduction talks, trying to force Republicans to confront an issue at the heart of this year's budget fights, sources told Reuters.
The tough stance by Democratic members of the powerful 12-member congressional panel reflects the party's wariness that Republicans might try to sideline the issue of revenue increases in the negotiations.
"They've raised the idea of doing taxes first," a Republican aide involved in the discussions said on Friday on condition of anonymity.
The panel has the task of finding ways of cutting the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If it fails to agree on a plan by November 23, automatic spending cuts will be triggered, beginning in 2013.
If Democrats hold firm to their demand for taxes to be discussed first, that could make it hard for the committee to make the tight November deadline. Congress is due to vote on the panel's recommendations by December 23.
Another congressional aide, who also did not want to be identified, confirmed that among Democrats, "there is an effort to try to discuss revenues" now.
During the super committee's initial closed-door meetings, "Republicans wanted to just talk about spending cuts and Democrats said, 'No,'" the aide said.
Republicans strongly oppose tax hikes, arguing they will hurt an anemic economic recovery. But they have not ruled out closing some tax loopholes as part of tax reform. Democrats, including President Barack Obama, insist revenue increases must be part of any deficit reduction deal.
Democrats' calls for increasing taxes on the rich may have been bolstered by a new Congressional Research Service analysis. The September 23 report obtained by Reuters concluded that letting decade-old tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of next year as scheduled "could help reduce budget deficits in the short term without stifling the economic recovery."
Discussing taxes first would also be a switch from the negotiating tactics employed in earlier talks.
In the summer debt talks between the White House and congressional leaders, the strategy was to try first to agree on what were perceived to be less controversial issues, such as domestic spending cuts. Those talks ultimately broke down amid disagreements over taxes.
NO AGREEMENT YET ON WHERE TO START
A third congressional aide with knowledge of the super committee's discussions told Reuters the six Democratic panel members were "not completely unified on their approach."
The aide said that while some of the Democrats were willing to work on less controversial items now, others thought tax increases should take priority.
If Democrats insist on tackling tax increases first, that is "problematic" given the November 23 deadline, the aide said.
The Republican aide involved in the discussions said the deficit talks were still at an early stage. "They're going through the minutiae of everything that is possible (for government savings). It's an inventory phase."
There is "no agreement on what will be negotiated first," the aide added.
Budget and tax specialists in the private sector are predicting arduous negotiations that could end with a partial deal at best in which the committee agrees on some savings, with the balance achieved by the automatic spending cuts.
Failure by the committee to agree on a comprehensive deficit reduction deal could lead to a further downgrade of the stellar government credit rating, a move that in turn could damage a global economy struggling to right itself after a deep recession.
(Editing by Ross Colvin and Peter Cooney.)
Saturday, October 1, 2011
This Just Shows you How Stupid the People Protesting on Wall Street Are...
Guess who's behind some of these protests????? Good Old George Soros....
Obama's Demanding his Jobs Bill get passed and He Doesn't Even Have the Support of the Democrats....
Who does Obama think he is...he's out there demanding that Congress pass the Jobs Bill and he's blaming Republicans when the REAL TRUTH is that "Dirty" Harry Reid hasn't even begun to think about bringing it up in the democratically controlled Senate because he knows that he doesn't have enough DEMOCRAT votes to pass it much less Republican votes!!!!
And IF it were to get through the Senate it would NEVER get through the House...
That's the Truth and Obama KNOWS IT....this is all just a political ploy..
See the two articles below....
Barack Obama wants jobs bill back
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 10/1/11 7:28 AM EDT Updated: 10/1/11 10:16 AM EDT
President Barack Obama sent his $447 billion jobs bill to Congress nearly three weeks ago and, he said on Saturday that he wants it back.
“This jobs bill is fully paid for. This jobs bill contains the kinds of proposals that Democrats and Republicans have supported in the past,” Obama said in his weekly address to the nation. “And now, I want it back. It is time for Congress to get its act together and pass this jobs bill so I can sign it into law.”
Republicans have said that they agree with some of what’s in the American Jobs Act, and the president wants to know what those parts of the bill are. He also wants them to say what they’re opposed to.
“Are they against putting teachers and police officers and firefighters back on the job? Are they against hiring construction workers to rebuild our roads and bridges and schools? Are they against giving tax cuts to virtually every worker and small business in America?”
Echoing arguments he’s made since introducing the plan, the president said Washington should rise above politics and do what’s right for the American people, which — in his view — is passing the bill.
“I know one Republican was quoted as saying that their party shouldn’t pass this jobs bill because it would give me a win,” Obama said, referring to a quote published by POLITICO on Sept. 11 about Republican opposition to the bill that he’s cited several times since.
“Well, this isn’t about giving me a win, and it’s not about [Republicans],” Obama said.
“This is about Destiny Wheeler and Alice Johnson. It’s about Cathleen Dixon’s children, and the Fabers’s family business,” he said, referring to ordinary Americans who have written to him to voice their support for the bill. “These are the people who need a win, and I will be fighting for this jobs bill every day on their behalf. If anyone watching feels the same way, don’t be shy about letting your congressman know. It is time for the politics to end. Let’s pass this jobs bill.”
Saying that a wide range of economists endorse his proposal, Obama can’t understand opposition to his bill: “Why would you be against that? Especially at a time when so many Americans are struggling and out of work.
“This isn’t just about what I think is right. It’s not just about what a group of economists think is right. This is about what the American people want,” he said. “Everywhere I go, they tell me they want action on jobs. Every day, I get letters from Americans who expect Washington to do something about the problems we face.”
Durbin says Democrats don’t currently have the votes for Obama jobs bill
By Daniel Strauss - 09/29/11 07:33 PM ET
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, at the moment, Democrats in Congress don’t have the votes to pass President Obama’s jobs bill, but Durbin added that that situation would change.
“Not at the moment, I don’t think we do, but, uh, we can work on it,” Durbin said, according to Chicago radio station WLS.
President Obama has been calling for Congress to pass his American Jobs Act since legislators returned from their August recess. The jobs plan is made up of a combination of tax increases on the wealthy, new infrastructure spending, an extension of the employee payroll-tax cut and additional funding for unemployment insurance benefits.
Republicans have voiced opposition to the plan, albeit less than with other pieces of legislation Democrats have proposed recently.
Durbin added that the president’s bill would need bipartisan support because there are senators both on the left and the right opposed to aspects of it.
“The oil-producing-state senators don’t like eliminating or reducing the subsidy for oil companies,” Durbin said. “There are some senators who are up for election who say ‘I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people.’ So, we’re not gonna have 100 percent of Democratic senators. That’s why it needs to be bipartisan and I hope we can find some Republicans who will join us to make it happen.”
And IF it were to get through the Senate it would NEVER get through the House...
That's the Truth and Obama KNOWS IT....this is all just a political ploy..
See the two articles below....
Barack Obama wants jobs bill back
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 10/1/11 7:28 AM EDT Updated: 10/1/11 10:16 AM EDT
President Barack Obama sent his $447 billion jobs bill to Congress nearly three weeks ago and, he said on Saturday that he wants it back.
“This jobs bill is fully paid for. This jobs bill contains the kinds of proposals that Democrats and Republicans have supported in the past,” Obama said in his weekly address to the nation. “And now, I want it back. It is time for Congress to get its act together and pass this jobs bill so I can sign it into law.”
Republicans have said that they agree with some of what’s in the American Jobs Act, and the president wants to know what those parts of the bill are. He also wants them to say what they’re opposed to.
“Are they against putting teachers and police officers and firefighters back on the job? Are they against hiring construction workers to rebuild our roads and bridges and schools? Are they against giving tax cuts to virtually every worker and small business in America?”
Echoing arguments he’s made since introducing the plan, the president said Washington should rise above politics and do what’s right for the American people, which — in his view — is passing the bill.
“I know one Republican was quoted as saying that their party shouldn’t pass this jobs bill because it would give me a win,” Obama said, referring to a quote published by POLITICO on Sept. 11 about Republican opposition to the bill that he’s cited several times since.
“Well, this isn’t about giving me a win, and it’s not about [Republicans],” Obama said.
“This is about Destiny Wheeler and Alice Johnson. It’s about Cathleen Dixon’s children, and the Fabers’s family business,” he said, referring to ordinary Americans who have written to him to voice their support for the bill. “These are the people who need a win, and I will be fighting for this jobs bill every day on their behalf. If anyone watching feels the same way, don’t be shy about letting your congressman know. It is time for the politics to end. Let’s pass this jobs bill.”
Saying that a wide range of economists endorse his proposal, Obama can’t understand opposition to his bill: “Why would you be against that? Especially at a time when so many Americans are struggling and out of work.
“This isn’t just about what I think is right. It’s not just about what a group of economists think is right. This is about what the American people want,” he said. “Everywhere I go, they tell me they want action on jobs. Every day, I get letters from Americans who expect Washington to do something about the problems we face.”
Durbin says Democrats don’t currently have the votes for Obama jobs bill
By Daniel Strauss - 09/29/11 07:33 PM ET
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, at the moment, Democrats in Congress don’t have the votes to pass President Obama’s jobs bill, but Durbin added that that situation would change.
“Not at the moment, I don’t think we do, but, uh, we can work on it,” Durbin said, according to Chicago radio station WLS.
President Obama has been calling for Congress to pass his American Jobs Act since legislators returned from their August recess. The jobs plan is made up of a combination of tax increases on the wealthy, new infrastructure spending, an extension of the employee payroll-tax cut and additional funding for unemployment insurance benefits.
Republicans have voiced opposition to the plan, albeit less than with other pieces of legislation Democrats have proposed recently.
Durbin added that the president’s bill would need bipartisan support because there are senators both on the left and the right opposed to aspects of it.
“The oil-producing-state senators don’t like eliminating or reducing the subsidy for oil companies,” Durbin said. “There are some senators who are up for election who say ‘I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people.’ So, we’re not gonna have 100 percent of Democratic senators. That’s why it needs to be bipartisan and I hope we can find some Republicans who will join us to make it happen.”
Obama Says America has Gotten Soft....What is he Thinking????
Obama says America has gotten soft....and this all the while as he has ruined our economy....put/kept millions out of work with his failed policies.....done everything in his power to make America totally dependent on Government (extended unemployment, record use of food stamps, Obamacare etc etc)...IF anyone is responsible for America getting softer, IT IS OBAMA!
Obama's got to go in 2012....if not before!
Obama's got to go in 2012....if not before!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)