In the early days of the Obama Administration, Obama said he supported a financial transactions tax, sometimes called a Robin Hood tax, of 0.05% (1/20 of 1%) on large transactions only. The idea never made it past the three blind mice (Geithner, Bernanke, and Summers). The idea is still excellent, because it encourages investment, rather than speculation, in addition to providing a revenue stream directly from those individuals most responsible for the Republican Recession. Today 99% demonstrators will occupy the Treasury to demand that this tax be adopted.
More than 1,500 nurses from National Nurses United, plus members of AFL-CIO and Occupy Wall Street protesters, will march on the White House and the Treasury tomorrow to push for a tax on Wall Street.
The march will “press President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to support a meaningful tax on Wall Street financial to help heal the U.S. and join the growing global movement for a financial transaction tax,” according to a release…
Inserted from <Politico>
This short video explains the Robin Hood tax in terms even a child could understand.
Now if only a Republican could understand it.
Author and Journalist, Ron Suskind, is one of the premier authorities on this tax. Rachel Maddow interviewed him.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Suskind’s criticism of Obama is justified. Abandoning his own pre-election financial advisors and adopting Clinton’s may be the worst error of his Presidency. He needs to sack Timmy the Tool, and bring in advisers like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman. This Robin Hood tax is a perfect opportunity to put Republicans on front street by supporting the 99% on this, but his feet need to follow his mouth.
I fully support the demonstrators and encourage all who can to join them.
10 Responses to “Occupy the Treasury Today!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Maybe this little cartoon explanation should be sent to Congress and the Senate.
An excellent idea!
Patty’s right! I had brought up a similar idea at a conversation about 10 yrs ago, suggesting the same “tax”, and was told that it was “floating” around out there – and it was shortly after that I found it – I suspect, of course can’t prove it, that O is supportive because the banks are legislating policy more than we might know, and probably have a lot of influence on elections more than we know – so the “hands off” policy abides – Sanders has been touting this tax for years as well! Whats wrong with us? Oh well – it just might take the 99% to force the issue – if they can stop charges from BOA – I think they might get this through as well!
I hope so, Lee.
Make no mistake, the Republican/Teabaggers understand this tax all too well. Even though they were elected by the people, they ‘represent’ the banksters etc and their masters don’t want this tax, regardless of the size, because it comes from their corporate pockets. Not only that, by denying it, the R/T’s live in hope that the electorate will hold Obama accountable for it’s failure and make him a one term president. I hope the tax is implemented and the R/T plan backfires in their faces.
No doubt about that, Lynn.
It’s 0.05% (5/100 of a percent), not 0.5% (1/2 of a percent) tax that is being proposed — 1/2 a percent would be enormous in financial terms. And the name needs to be changed from the ‘Robin Hood’ tax; that name is not a selling point to either the Sheriff of Nottingham or Republicans. I propose calling it the George Soros tax. Soros, at least historically, made the bulk of his money from arbitrage, buying and selling the same stock (or whatever) simultaneously on different markets around the world to make incrementally very small gains that only add up after numerous large transactions. And the thought of taking down Soros would warm the heart of many an archconservative.
Thank you Paul. You are indeed correct. I have edited the article to correct my typo.
The President could convince a whole lot of people that he finally “gets it” by jettisoning Geithner and the rest of the Wall Street scum he’s got on board. I firmly believe that if he does not, he doesn’t at peril of his re-election.
I agree. I don’t consider it imperative for reelection, but that’s only because the opposition is so horrid.