Posted on 02/17/2009 2:28:20 PM PST by rabscuttle385
BY EDWARD LUCEA & KRISHNA GUHA
Nationalisation, long regarded in Washington as a folly of Europeans, is gaining rapid ground among US opinion-formers. Stranger still, many of those talking about federal ownership of banks are Republicans.
Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for North Carolina, said that many of his colleagues, including John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, agreed with his view that nationalisation of some banks should be “on the table”.
Mr Graham said that people across the US accepted his argument that it was untenable to keep throwing good money after bad into institutions such as Citigroup and Bank of America, which now have a lower net value than the amount of public funds they have received.
“You should not get caught up on a word [nationalisation],” he told the Financial Times in an interview. “I would argue that we cannot be ideologically a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t matter what you call it, but we can’t keep on funding these zombie banks [without gaining public control]. That’s what the Japanese did.”
Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has recently moved more towards what he calls the “Swedish model” – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham.
In the early 1990s, Sweden nationalised its banking sector then auctioned banks, having cleaned up their balance sheets. “In limited circumstances the Swedish model makes sense for the US,” said Mr Graham.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
Very similar to my trophy wife (except for bust size).
How about this, Mrs. McCain: Let the bad banks fail and let the regionals and smaller healthier banks pick their bones.
That would be the best way to go...and I totally agree.
But, I bet Grahamnesty and McCain have probably taken a lot of campaign contributions from the bad banks....as well as may have invested in them...
So what you say is, there’s a difference in the size of trohpies?
God save us. If Ayn Rand wasn’t dead, this would kill her. I simply cannot believe the American people voted to end the Republic that the founding fathers created, but that certainly seems to be the case
The RTC worked well, and was technically “nationalization”. the Swedish model could work well for us. Let’s not get hung up on labels.
This is not permanent government control. The plan should be from the outset to Reprivatize the banks after the treasury/fdic/federal reserve can safely and completely dispose of all the toxic securities.
Secretary Geithner's proposal to fund a $2 trillion Public Private Partnership to buy up the securities is untenable.
McNuts is still wondering why he lost. This pretty much should give him a clue. All throughout the campaign, he was a "me too" candidate. Why can't McNuts just go away?...And, take Grahamnesty with him?!!!
With all of the liberals in Congress, losing these two would be a major blessing.
The First Bank of the United States is significant because the institution provoked the first great debate over strict, as opposed to an expansive interpretation of the Constitution. In adopting Hamilton’s proposal and chartering the bank both the Congress and the President took the necessary first steps toward implementing a sound fiscal policy that would eventually ensure the survival of the new federal government and the continued growth and prosperity of the United States.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/butowsky2/constitution5.htm
http://www.constitution.org/mon/tj-bank.htm
>>Snip
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “ all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.
I They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.
2. “To borrow money.” But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.
3. To “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes.” To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as `’ productive of considerable advantages to trade.” Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.
II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following:
>>Snip
Oh but gee, we HAVE to keep the rinos in office because they are SO much better than Demonrats. amirite?
I’m tempted to ping the resident trolls to find out what exactly makes Specter The Spectre so much the better.
If everyone was provided with a Swedish model, there’d be a lot of stimulating going on.
Lindsey Graham is a joke. Too bad Tom Ravenel turned out to be a cokehead - he was going to oust him in the 2008 primary.
Advocating bank nationalization is grounds to be kicked out of the Republican party, IMO. I want him out. Now.
I haven’t heard McCain pipe up on this one, yet.
Amen to that.
I will empty and close all my accounts first thing tomorrow AM. Checking, savings (laughter), 401 (hysterical laughter), right on down the line to the Series E/EE bonds (laughter turns to pitty), EVERYTHING, done. I cannot believe in something that does not exist.
Ya, Barky. I ain’t no poker player. I’m out. You win large. ;)
Earlier today on this very site, a poster was lambasting non-McCain voters and saying that McCain would have blocked the stimulus. Funny stuff.
Absolutely no doubt about it.
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.