Give more power to the same government that made this mess, lol no its not necessary, don't buy into their BS!
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
so much for the $700 billion we just forked over... the only bright spot is that GOPer economics is gonna get flushed down the toilet with all our 401k money.
smiling_dog
· 1 year ago
What, are you kidding? They should take control of all of the ones that needed bailing out. They can always sell them back into the private sector at a later date. Otherwise, we're giving these criminals more money without any oversight.
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
Um, do you recall prezident bushoover who wants limitless executive power?
smiling_dog
· 1 year ago
Look, the unregulated banks collapsed, just as happened with Hoover. They need to be taken over by the government, reregulated and then sold back to the private sector when the proper regulations have been initiated.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
and or break them into smaller entities to be restarted once they're solvent again... it's past time that the anti-trust laws were resurrected to keep corporations from becoming so large that they have to be "rescued" to keep the larger economy from tanking...
ThingsComeUndone
· 1 year ago
Just how bad is the economy really if the Bush WH is thinking of taking over the banks?
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
remember when we were talking about the US becoming a third world country? do you hear all those people saying "We will get through this?". I'm sure we will. The question is what things will look like when we come out on the other side. They already look quite different and we are only just beginning to enter the fun house.
brian
· 1 year ago
The Republicans are about to get a strong dose of Socialism. Unfortunately, the Socialism is for the rich that made extremely bad decisions. Where is my healthcare?
driver1076
· 1 year ago
This really isnt such a bad thing as long as we have Oversight,I would rather do this than just give these Asshats the money,Every real economist I have heard talk said this plan is the only one that would give the taxpayers a chance to get there money back.At least the taxpayers have a say in how they dispense the money and there books become public records not such a bad thing
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
There is a vast difference between oversight and control. Oversight is ensuring there is no wrongdoing. That hasn't been done in the recent past. Control is socialism. Is that really what you are wanting???
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
right now the folks who are in the "oversight roles" are ones that come directly from Wall Street and with the current administration the likelyhood that someone from OUTSIDE with economic expertise and oversight experience is slim to none... they have NO interest in blowing the whistle on shady deals... if they did it wouldn't have gotten this far...
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
So, isn't that about the correct people? not about the entire system being wrong?
Jophus
· 1 year ago
i'm with you. the regulators in charge need to be voted on in congressional hearings so we can get real intellectuals and no mavericks.
thank god mccain has screwed up so bad, because if this happens there is no way he can politicize it, unless he is honestly that out of touch with with reality. which even if he has early onset Alzheimer's he would know this is too important to meddle with.
while we're at it, lets add a heavy regulation to the oil industry to help support our economic recovery.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
this is possibly not a bad thing, succeded in sweden recently.
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
yeah, our politicians and bankers have ethics so much like those of their counterparts in Sweden.
Joneses
· 1 year ago
Retirement funds are pretty messed up too. Seems like the common people get "F" first as usual.
Here in L.A. I heard that we are the most depressed regarding the economy in the country. Hey, what else is new.
I also heard on the radio that the stock market must hit rock bottom before moving up again. Oh joy, but in the mean time, the common people get hurt the most. And this crisis will take at least one - two years.
Some of the banks are selling some of their business portions to India and other countries or letting them go. I listen to 1680 (I think) on A.M. radio here in L.A. in the evening sometime going home, gold & silver - buy, buy, buy.
Besides Prop 8, there's a program much like "head start" which may be defeated here in California. Seems like people just don't care about people.
But we do.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
I wouldn't bet on having hit "rock bottom" yet... we're probably not even close... the piece that's been missing with all the money being thrown in the fire is any real attempt to start reeling in the fraudsters on Wall Street and a REAL plan to get things under control and prevent the banks from doing the same thing... so far what we've seen and heard is "throw money in to get credit flowing again" and "throw some more"... and "oh, here's a rate cut"...
Sage24
· 1 year ago
On CNN just now: Palin's secessionist husband, Todd has just testified at Troopergate. I wonder how much he has lied to save her. These people lie so easily.
driver1076
· 1 year ago
I want the taxpayers to have oversight not control the Goverment has no business trying to control banks but if the taxpayers are footing the bill to the tune of over 850 billion dollars(which I think is just the beginning) the they deserve oversight and input ..
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
Putting government officials in ownership positions will effectively control banks just like when you own something - you have more than oversight. You own it and get to do what you want with it. Do you want the government controlling your money? investments? savings? Get it? Because they are so good at it? They just gave Wall St $850 billion!!!! Geez! How many times do you have to get hit before you recognize who is hitting you?
Nonetheless, you may think that it is the "mavericky" think to do. Good luck with that.
driver1076
· 1 year ago
OK so what is your great solution to this,give the crooks the keys to the front door of the treasury with no oversight and no way for the taxpayers to collect some of the money back.I see by one of your other post that you invest in banks to make a profit how did that work out for You
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
there is a fair argument for socialism here, but it requires more thought than your pot-shots. one answer is a forced, regulated return to local, small s+ls controlling home loans - like it used to be... one great advantage of gov't owned enterprises is they become 'commons' - and as such can operate at a loss if the overall gains by the people warrant it. the key is good management and work by people who give a damn, while not becoming stagnant. banking/loans/insurance - it's all fairly formula. it's probably not going to change much over time.
Dave_Latchaw
· 1 year ago
This is how they should have done it in the first place.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
I guess I'm not scared of the prospect of the government owning a stake in major banks.
I don't trust any of them, but I have more control over the government (via voting) than I do over private shareholders.
Besides, this way, the government call sell its stakes when bank stocks go back up, breaking even or even making money for taxpayers, rather than just handing out checks with no hope of getting repaid.
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
Becauses the government is so good at giving up it's hand in things. Yup. You say you don't trust them. That's like saying you don't trust a thief but you'd let him hold your wallet.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Why do you trust the CEOs?
How are they any better?
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
Well, first I don't "trust" them. What I know is that they want to make money. That's why I invest. The government does not care about making money. As proof, the country is BROKE. ZERO. NO CASH IN THE BANK. What I also know is that, as any other human. CEO's need supervision. In this case, OVERSIGHT. They haven't had any in years under Bush.
If they have that, with doses of other medicine, things can straighten out. But socialism, fascism and limitless Presidential Power is NOT the answer.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Near as I can tell, they're talking about taking ownership stakes in the banks, not complete ownership.
So, wouldn't this provide the oversight you want combined with the profit motivation you want?
And wouldn't it work out better for the tax payers because, rather than throwing money down a hole, they'd actually get something out of it?
I don't see your objection as anything but an irrational reaction to scare words like "socialism."
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
Ownership is ownership. Government leverage is powerful. Don't kid yourself. Outside oversight is quite different.
Why are you so complacent at giving up control of you assets to government control? Do you realize the incredibly dangerous precedent it would set? Why aren't you scared of words like fascism and socialism?
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Because when I look at how the capitalists have screwed things up, I think "What's so friggin' great about it anyway?"
They got everything they wanted over the past 8 years and look at what a hash they made of it.
Maybe a mixed system of some government ownership and some private ownership is the best way.
At least this way the taxpayers make some money back when we have to bail them out.
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
And I agree with you. I just don't think that the banking system is the place to start - or possibly ever to be included in government ownership.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
government is the problem? That's the BS that started with reagan in 1980 that began this whole mess. if government is not working, then we fix it until it does. we're all in this together, remember? gov't isn't some far-away entitiy that we need to fear. it's us, nothing else.
PeteWa
· 1 year ago
Well, Bushie did such a good job on the other basics of fascism, might as well finish the job, right?
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
that's what they seem to be saying here. people love to get fucked. .
Indigo
· 1 year ago
Step away from those anti-socialist ideologies and look at the facts. They broke it; they bought it. Now we watch to see if they can fix it.
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
They bought it????? No. YOU bought it. Duh. What are you talking about? Who would let the fool that broke it fix it? No, you let experts fix it, not the idiots who broke it. And if they don't fix it? Oh well! Dumb us! Too bad.
driver1076
· 1 year ago
Every economic expert I have heard since this bailout started said this is the best plan out there. Who are You listening to,what experts are you listening to,if yours have a better plan I willing to listen.
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
I have not heard one single economic expert say that nationalization of any bank or any part of any bank is a good idea. There is no need for another plan other than to NOT do it. That's my plan. Who are you listening to that says banks should be nationalized? Vladamir Putin?
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Nah, Putin's a capitalist is the Bush-style "crony capitalism" mode.
driver1076
· 1 year ago
This American life on NPR had a 1 hour program on this exact subject last Sunday,even Jim Cramer supports oversight, maybe You should take some time to go to there sight and LISTEN to it,it explains in both layman terms and financial terms what happened and how to use the bailout money wisely,Im no fan of this bailout at all I was one saying let the scumbags fall,and anybody Dumb enough to invest in them.since it is a done deal shouldnt We as tax payers get something in return.
Here's my bottom line point then enough said. While I have no problem with the basic tenants of socialism, I am not totally sure that starting with banks is the best path or that it should ever be tackled in that manner. I believe it should be used selectively. Finally, I do NOT want Bush and his cronies touching MY MONEY. That's what he and his Wall Street buds have always wanted. No. Not right now. They have messed up everything from A to Z and I don't want them screwing this up, too. Thanks for the conversation.
boloboffin
· 1 year ago
Read lots of Roubini. If you go to his blog, you can sign up for a limited membership that allows you currently to have a lot more access than usual due to the crisis situation. A partial nationalization is good for us, because we're getting equity in the banks in exchange for capitalizing them. That fellow knows what he's talking about.
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
He discusses it in terms of the bailout having already have "nationalized" AFFECTED banks. He does NOT suggest nationalizing them by takinig ownership, management, etc. as the article indicates. Two very different things.
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
Well, if we are going to NATIONALIZE the banks, I think we ought to NATIONALIZE all the EXTRA homes of Senators, like John McCain's. Its only fair... how many homes does ONE family need? They have THIRTEEN and the want the White House in Washington, DC?
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
I'm tired of the whole facade of those who got us in this mess and are now having to ask the middle class to bail them out are NOT LOSING anything! Now THAT is what I have a big problem with. I have a problem with people who actually think they need THIRTEEN DAMNED homes when people are being foreclosed upon, like my African American hard working female Army veteran friend here in Tulsa. Yea, I know I'm sounding like an old fashioned socialist but our government is SOCIALIZING things, but only on a level that doesn't change the "elite rich" status quo. The elite rich need to pay for their sins at least by paying higher damned taxes. I'm so sick of all that Reagan Republican trickle down bullshit that is now proven to be absolute sloganeering.
hurple
· 1 year ago
This site has some amazing hidden camera footage of John McCain And Tom Brokaw getting ready backstage in Nashville before the October 7, 2008 Presidential debates.
If it's a circle jerk over the Krugman article, I'm not looking.
shrrrr
· 1 year ago
you looked. who do you think you're kidding?
devlzadvocate
· 1 year ago
Eww! McNasty and Brokjaw? NOT!
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
The guy used to work for Soros!
This has to be the Wingnuts' worst nightmare!
LOL.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
confusing. i thought the rescue legislation required treasury to acquire equity. what is up with this resistance from the banks?
“The banking industry will not be in favor [of direct equity purchases] because nobody likes to pay for their own mistakes—It is much better to have the taxpayers pay for their mistakes,” argues Luigi Zingales, a leading financial scholar, who teaches at the University of Chicago. “And to the extent that the Treasury Department is captured by the banking industry they will oppose this.”
All Comments
no its not necessary, don't buy into their BS!
the only bright spot is that GOPer economics is gonna get flushed down the toilet with all our 401k money.
thank god mccain has screwed up so bad, because if this happens there is no way he can politicize it, unless he is honestly that out of touch with with reality. which even if he has early onset Alzheimer's he would know this is too important to meddle with.
while we're at it, lets add a heavy regulation to the oil industry to help support our economic recovery.
Here in L.A. I heard that we are the most depressed regarding the economy in the country. Hey, what else is new.
I also heard on the radio that the stock market must hit rock bottom before moving up again. Oh joy, but in the mean time, the common people get hurt the most. And this crisis will take at least one - two years.
Some of the banks are selling some of their business portions to India and other countries or letting them go. I listen to 1680 (I think) on A.M. radio here in L.A. in the evening sometime going home, gold & silver - buy, buy, buy.
Besides Prop 8, there's a program much like "head start" which may be defeated here in California. Seems like people just don't care about people.
But we do.
Nonetheless, you may think that it is the "mavericky" think to do. Good luck with that.
one answer is a forced, regulated return to local, small s+ls controlling home loans - like it used to be...
one great advantage of gov't owned enterprises is they become 'commons' - and as such can operate at a loss if the overall gains by the people warrant it.
the key is good management and work by people who give a damn, while not becoming stagnant. banking/loans/insurance - it's all fairly formula. it's probably not going to change much over time.
I don't trust any of them, but I have more control over the government (via voting) than I do over private shareholders.
Besides, this way, the government call sell its stakes when bank stocks go back up, breaking even or even making money for taxpayers, rather than just handing out checks with no hope of getting repaid.
How are they any better?
If they have that, with doses of other medicine, things can straighten out. But socialism, fascism and limitless Presidential Power is NOT the answer.
So, wouldn't this provide the oversight you want combined with the profit motivation you want?
And wouldn't it work out better for the tax payers because, rather than throwing money down a hole, they'd actually get something out of it?
I don't see your objection as anything but an irrational reaction to scare words like "socialism."
Why are you so complacent at giving up control of you assets to government control? Do you realize the incredibly dangerous precedent it would set? Why aren't you scared of words like fascism and socialism?
They got everything they wanted over the past 8 years and look at what a hash they made of it.
Maybe a mixed system of some government ownership and some private ownership is the best way.
At least this way the taxpayers make some money back when we have to bail them out.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/time-not-...
or how about these people?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/22/business...
maybe paul krugman?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03kru...
guess you don't have your 'ear to the ground' much, huh?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/09/news/economy/wh...
http://hurple.blogspot.com/2008/10/footage.html
This has to be the Wingnuts' worst nightmare!
LOL.
“The banking industry will not be in favor [of direct equity purchases] because nobody likes to pay for their own mistakes—It is much better to have the taxpayers pay for their mistakes,” argues Luigi Zingales, a leading financial scholar, who teaches at the University of Chicago. “And to the extent that the Treasury Department is captured by the banking industry they will oppose this.”
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was one of the most important banking regulations ever passed, as it prohibited any commercial bank from engaging in investment banking activities. As FDR told the House of Morgan, you can be a commercial bank or an investment bank, but you can't be both. This was done to prevent a raft of abuses which occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s, as the bankers saved themselves at the expense of their customers and the public. Glass-Steagall forced the House of Morgan to split into two separate institutions, an act for which FDR has never been forgiven, but FDR was entirely correct, as recent events have demonstrated. The banks began to chip away at Glass-Steagall in the 1980s, and it was finally repealed in 1999, after the illegal merger of Travelers and Citicorp to form Citigroup in 1998. The repeal of Glass-Steagall opened the floodgates as the banks expanded their speculative activities, until the distinctions between commercial banking and investment banking have virtually disappeared. As has the solvency of the system.
Retrieving the commercial banking functions out of some of these abominations will require delicate surgery, akin to removing deeply embedded tumors. This is the case with Wachovia Corp., where the commercial bank, Wachovia Bank, N.A., is the largest among hundreds of subsidiaries. Wachovia Bank, however, is a toxic waste dump, holding among other nasties $4.4 trillion in notional value of derivatives, or $6.63 in derivatives for every dollar of assets. That means that saving the entire bank, much less its parent holding company, is not only undesirable but impossible. What can be saved, however, are the deposits first and foremost, and the loans and leases related to traditional banking activities; what will be let go, are the derivatives and other speculative activities. The holding company and all its subsidiaries should be seized by Federal banking regulators, and put into receivership. The necessary commercial banking activities would be reorganized into a new institution, while the rest would be frozen and dealt with later.......
......In the next couple of weeks, between Oct. 1 and Oct. 15, we will very likely see the complete collapse of the U.S. banking system. Should the Bush/Paulson bailout package be passed, it would immediately trigger a Weimar Germany-style hyperinflationary explosion, destroying the value of the dollar, and with it the economy. Should the bailout be rejected, the British banking system will collapse immediately, with the U.S. banks collapsing on its heels. With or without the bailout, we face the disintegration of the banking system, thanks in large part to deregulation and globalization.
LaRouche's HBPA is the only effective way of preventing the collapse of the financial bubble from taking the economy down with it. It is a dramatic measure, but far preferable to the absolute chaos and destruction which will ensue without it. Without it, the nation is lost.