While Geithner saying he doesnt support transaction taxes was a good thing, and him speaking on behalf of the administration at the g20, he does not make policy. I would still like to think what the administration thinks counts now, since we are in a one party government , so we shall see. So far this is the same stuff being printed and talked about, 3 weeks ago they talked about putting it in the transportation bill, CNBC is always late to the party. I did see somethin the other day saying this bill would exempt pensions, health and education savings, but made no mention of 401ks or IRA'S. I dont want it even considered in the house but if it must atleast we shall know pretty quick what the conensus is and hopefully they will shoot it down. We see the same names again and again, Jim Clyburn, Peter Defazio and Ed Perlmutter with tax, plus the 13 co sponsers of the original bill not much more then that supporting at this point. I think and it seems like they are pushing hard becuase if they do not get it done now it may nevver be done, now is their shot becuase of the crisis and turmoil.
Here is the video, its nothing new. It was reiterating basically waht was said by Defazio and Jim Clyburn weeks ago about the trasnaction taxes for the infastructure bill. Erin is actually keeping her mouth shut this time. Defazio is a member of the transportation and infastruture committee thats why we are hearing about this a lot.
One of the similar artciles someone else posted this one discusses at the end the tax, and its the AFL CIO/NAACP pushing it. Saying it can be enacted in the 3 year of a 10 year period.
These initiatives will cost money, and we will need to tolerate higher deficits in the next few years. However, a jobs initiative can be coupled with a revenue stream, such as a financial transactions tax, that can take effect in the third year and more than pay for these efforts over a 10-year period
Here is a letter from Senator Kay Hagan, who is a democrat in the senate. She is against the bill in the house and would oppose it, but there is no bill in the senate. Here is the letter
November 17, 2009
Thank you for your message regarding the Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue. I apologize for my delayed response.
On February 13, 2009 the Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009 (H.R. 1068) was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to require securities trading companies to pay a sufficient excise tax on a percentage of the value of their securities and commodities transactions in order to recoup the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). A similar bill has not been introduced in the Senate; however, I am opposed to the House version.
TARP was created under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which was enacted in October 2008 at the peak of our financial crisis. The program was aimed at purchasing assets and equity from banks to strengthen them and encourage them to expand lending during a tightening credit squeeze. The funds provided under TARP were an investment, with the understanding that the American taxpayers will be repaid with interest. As a result of TARP and other targeted rescue program, banks are now recovering more quickly than the overall economy. Legislation such as H.R. 1068 could derail this progress. Furthermore, banks have already started to repay their TARP funds with interest.
In June, ten of nation's largest banks were able to demonstrate their return to stable profitability, and were cleared to repay a combined $68.3 billion in federal aid. They join 22 community banks that were previously allowed to repay about $1.8 billion in TARP funding. In addition to those repayments, so far, the Department of Treasury has collected about $6.85 billion in dividend and interest payments from recipients of the TARP funds. These repayments are an encouraging sign that we are on the road to economic recovery. I will continue to closely monitor TARP's progress in the upcoming months.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kay R. Hagan
Please do not reply to this email. Instead, if you have further questions, please visit www.hagan.senate.gov and fill out my web form for your inquiry. Thank you.
Here is a letter from Senator Kay Hagan, who is a democrat in the senate. She is against the bill in the house and would oppose it, but there is no bill in the senate. Here is the letter
November 17, 2009
Thank you for your message regarding the Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue. I apologize for my delayed response.
On February 13, 2009 the Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009 (H.R. 1068) was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to require securities trading companies to pay a sufficient excise tax on a percentage of the value of their securities and commodities transactions in order to recoup the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). A similar bill has not been introduced in the Senate; however, I am opposed to the House version.
TARP was created under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which was enacted in October 2008 at the peak of our financial crisis. The program was aimed at purchasing assets and equity from banks to strengthen them and encourage them to expand lending during a tightening credit squeeze. The funds provided under TARP were an investment, with the understanding that the American taxpayers will be repaid with interest. As a result of TARP and other targeted rescue program, banks are now recovering more quickly than the overall economy. Legislation such as H.R. 1068 could derail this progress. Furthermore, banks have already started to repay their TARP funds with interest.
In June, ten of nation's largest banks were able to demonstrate their return to stable profitability, and were cleared to repay a combined $68.3 billion in federal aid. They join 22 community banks that were previously allowed to repay about $1.8 billion in TARP funding. In addition to those repayments, so far, the Department of Treasury has collected about $6.85 billion in dividend and interest payments from recipients of the TARP funds. These repayments are an encouraging sign that we are on the road to economic recovery. I will continue to closely monitor TARP's progress in the upcoming months.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kay R. Hagan
Please do not reply to this email. Instead, if you have further questions, please visit www.hagan.senate.gov and fill out my web form for your inquiry. Thank you.
Here is a letter from Senator Kay Hagan, who is a democrat in the senate. She is against the bill in the house and would oppose it, but there is no bill in the senate. Here is the letter
November 17, 2009
Thank you for your message regarding the Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue. I apologize for my delayed response.
On February 13, 2009 the Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009 (H.R. 1068) was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to require securities trading companies to pay a sufficient excise tax on a percentage of the value of their securities and commodities transactions in order to recoup the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). A similar bill has not been introduced in the Senate; however, I am opposed to the House version.
TARP was created under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which was enacted in October 2008 at the peak of our financial crisis. The program was aimed at purchasing assets and equity from banks to strengthen them and encourage them to expand lending during a tightening credit squeeze. The funds provided under TARP were an investment, with the understanding that the American taxpayers will be repaid with interest. As a result of TARP and other targeted rescue program, banks are now recovering more quickly than the overall economy. Legislation such as H.R. 1068 could derail this progress. Furthermore, banks have already started to repay their TARP funds with interest.
In June, ten of nation's largest banks were able to demonstrate their return to stable profitability, and were cleared to repay a combined $68.3 billion in federal aid. They join 22 community banks that were previously allowed to repay about $1.8 billion in TARP funding. In addition to those repayments, so far, the Department of Treasury has collected about $6.85 billion in dividend and interest payments from recipients of the TARP funds. These repayments are an encouraging sign that we are on the road to economic recovery. I will continue to closely monitor TARP's progress in the upcoming months.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kay R. Hagan
Please do not reply to this email. Instead, if you have further questions, please visit www.hagan.senate.gov and fill out my web form for your inquiry. Thank you.
So whether or not you think writing your senator helps, if it does great, if anything atleast we might get to know the position of the senator. I emailed Kay Hagan ( D N.C.)about a month or so ago, and she got back to me today. I was respectful when I emailed her, even though I didnt vote for her or her party. I told her how it will affect main street. I told her I was a trader but I am not worried about me I am worried about people's retirements, and what effect this could have on jobs. Among other things, but strayed away from worryying about me, the day trader. So I didn't expect much becuase she is a dem, but at least she got back to me. Whether its an aide or not writing this stuff, she is opposed to it and thats one more Democratic senator on our side.
