Thread: Obama seeking bank fees to cover billions in TARP losses

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by Nuckle

But you and I cant even agree that any of them should have received the money in the first place so all of this is mute lol.

Sorry to be that guy, but the word you are looking for is MOOT. I've seen this one several times in the past few days... I can't stay silent anymore!

Hehe, I only laugh because I barely managed to stop myself from doing the same thing =p

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by Nuckle

But you and I cant even agree that any of them should have received the money in the first place so all of this is mute lol.

Sorry to be that guy, but the word you are looking for is MOOT. I've seen this one several times in the past few days... I can't stay silent mute anymore!

there you go...that seemed more fitting/entertaining... :P

Good idea or not, any increase in cost to the banks will simply be passed along to the consumers.

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by Nuckle

But you and I cant even agree that any of them should have received the money in the first place so all of this is mute lol.

Sorry to be that guy, but the word you are looking for is MOOT. I've seen this one several times in the past few days... I can't stay silent anymore!

Yea you caught me. I actually had thought about it after went AFK.

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Good idea or not, any increase in cost to the banks will simply be passed along to the consumers.

Well that's a given with anything taxes or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Rawr

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Good idea or not, any increase in cost to the banks will simply be passed along to the consumers.

Well that's a given with anything taxes or otherwise.

Right, so my question is, if we are doing this "for the sake of the taxpayer's money", does it make any sense? Corporations will rarely allow themselves to take hits from rising Cost of Goods Sold or tax increases. They avoid it by passing it down. If this plan is for the benfit of the taxpayers doesn't it just wash out if we increase expenditures for the entities at hand?

Originally Posted by Rawr

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by Nuckle

But you and I cant even agree that any of them should have received the money in the first place so all of this is mute lol.

Sorry to be that guy, but the word you are looking for is MOOT. I've seen this one several times in the past few days... I can't stay silent anymore!

Hehe, I only laugh because I barely managed to stop myself from doing the same thing =p

lol +1 opened the screen and everything just didnt follow thru

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Originally Posted by Rawr

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Good idea or not, any increase in cost to the banks will simply be passed along to the consumers.

Well that's a given with anything taxes or otherwise.

Right, so my question is, if we are doing this "for the sake of the taxpayer's money", does it make any sense? Corporations will rarely allow themselves to take hits from rising Cost of Goods Sold or tax increases. They avoid it by passing it down. If this plan is for the benfit of the taxpayers doesn't it just wash out if we increase expenditures for the entities at hand?

Yeah, it does increase the expenditures for sure, but considering that some of these places are considered necessities for certain things, people will pay anyways... and most people probably won't even notice the change. It's surprising how many people don't pay attention to what they are paying for, and how much they are paying.

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Some of their asses did not need saving. As I said to hog, I am never going to agree that we should have given them the money in the first place so who owes who is irrelevant.

It costs them nothing to pay the interest accrued on the money they didn't want, for the duration of having it.

Your $1000 scenario is laughable, but yea I would pay the $1.00 interest accrued on holding that unwanted $1000, if that is what was accrued while sitting in my bank account. And since when do we have to agree with why the money was delivered in order to see the logic of forfeiting the interest accrued from borrowed capital and the monetary effects of such being zero?