Posted on 02/17/2009 2:28:20 PM PST by rabscuttle385
“Apparently, you are just too dumb to realize that the banks are kaput, and nationalization is going to be the cheapest way out while maintaining some semblance of a financial system.”
Maybe the govt can work in theory but it never does in practice.
If this program is merely “War Communism”, we will survive.
If the people crave socialism, we will perish.
Yeah, I remember wondering why dj was trying to reason with a hysterical, emotional wreck.
Agreed. If they really do what Sweden did, it’s probably a good idea. Far better than the hope-and-pray bailout of this fall. The stockholders eat the loss, but the credit system remains standing.
Then the government cleans up the balance sheet and auctions off the bank. The Swedish government owns no more banks today than before the early 90-ies nationalization. (I.e. they partially own one bank)
That’s a pretty big “if” though.
I should add that the risks in Sweden were reduced by it being the Right that nationalized the banks. They were never going to try to use nationalization as anything other than an emergency measure.
The new porkocratic dems though, can they be trusted? Far less, sadly.
Well lets see. If we give $25 billion for a bank that has a market Cap of $20 billion that is WORSE than “nationalization”. That’s just everyday Federal Reserve Member bank f*ck*ng of the US taxpayer.
Of course, I would LOVE to let them all fail. FAIL. FAIL !!! It’s a dream. But, if we are committed to saving the likes of Citi, JP Morgan and Goldman-Sachs then we should own them by now. We have provided free money way past any reasonable limit.
At this point we’re putting ourselves, our kids, and our grandkids in debt to assure that the heirs of JP Morgan can pay the greens fees at the Hamptons Country Club.
There are worse things than “nationalization”. Rape, for one. JP Morgan isn’t even wearing a condom in this latest escapade of rapine.
Did he really make that face? Was it taken in a bathroom?
should I withdrawal my money and Lesley is from SC.
I love it... Like you I have started Bookmarking and copy/saving “certain” posts and posters for “future review” ;-)
You know (or should know) as well as I do that once a government gets its hands into something, it is like a tick, very hard to dislodge...
Here is a common statement from the Government..."this will just be a temporary law or tax"... how many ever go away after being implemented, whether Federal, State or Local?
Now you’re talking. There is absolutely nothing happening right now that would indicate a need to “nationalize” anything.
What is happening right now is that the RINO led GOP is shedding more of its conservative cloak every day. Can there be any doubt in any reasonably intelligent person’s mind that the GOP has been coopted by the demrat party? Clearly it is no longer a meaningful opposition party to that bunch of leftist thugs.
Glad to hear I’m not alone!...
the beltway does not want to do principle write downs.
the nationalizing is to protect their own bank campaign donors.
Hehehehe...
Only when he's not driving his Subaru Station Wagon.
So which concerns you more - money or freedom?
Freedom is more important, but free and living in a hut isn't very attractive either. I would like to keep both.
Nationalization of the banks does set a bad precedent, and I haven't really decided whether that should happen or not. I do know that the banks are finished...we have spent nearly 700 (?) billion with the first half of the TARP with the remainder in FR injections. All I can see that it has done is prevent outright collapse.
Geithner doesn't know what to do next...other than throw money at the banks. I believe he's up to about a trillion dollar estimate on top of the second half of the TARP. In a way, the banks are already nationalized.
In this article, all Goober said is that it should be on the table. I want the best solution, and cost is a factor. I think I would rather have an open transition than Geithner spending ever more money that is virtually untrackable.
For the constitutional questions....the US government has stepped in repeatedly to keep the financial or banking systems from failing, so there is precedent for drastic intervention. I certainly don't want the government running the banks, but we have to have them...even local banks are dropping like flies...four more were taken over this weekend. A favorite saying here is that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't think it should be used to guarantee financial oblivion in the very nation it started, either.
Letting them fail really is not an option...20 banks have 90% of deposits. Were they to, the FDIC is going to be on the hook for maybe trillions counting MM funds and I don't see anyone but the government that has the financial resources to restart a banking system. I think the point is moot...Dems aren't going to let them fail.
Anyway you turn, if we have a banking system, the Feds are going to be calling the shots, and that means lunatic Democrats, and h*ll no, I don't trust them. But, I don't have any choice, elections have consequences. I wonder if they could screw it up worse than the so called professionals that have been running it?
Would staying on this hodgepodge course be better, or nationalizing the banks with an independent commission setting the rules?
I don't know. It really is above my pay grade. I do want all options discussed. Personally, I feel like setting up a gallows and cleaning up Wall St. the old fashioned way.
There really are no good solutions to this situation.
Are you kidding...that’s what we do around here....LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.