government should stay away from this mess, I believe.

My income will drop, so Obama can give me more money

I clicked not sure. If there were any guarantee that the shares would be sold back, I'd vote yes. If there were guarantees the gov't would hold them forever, I'd vote no.

I don't want to see any more $'s go into the "bail out" until I see real effort being undertaken to out all of the players.

They're the ones who created this mess......yeah....let's have them fix it.
/////

Privatization must remain a strong American reality. Privatization and freedom cannot survive without each other. imo

Was this post written by Charles?

It sure doesn't sound like his written voice.

Is that a good idea?

Yes! The state should control all aspects of the means of production, so that the proletariat will be able to shake off the chains of bondage. Unless they're, you know, into that sort of thing.

Do I want the same people who manage Social Security and Medicare to watch my bank? I don't think so!

We entering a slippery slope with all of this bailout business......I hope we do not fall down

Ron Paul!

/Somebody had to.

At the moment, I am resolutely Not Sure.

Can we vote "Present"?

re: #9 jorline

Do I want the same people who manage Social Security and Medicare to watch my bank? I don't think so!

Oh, come on, they'll have your bank running every bit as efficiently as Amtrak!

Tuesday was supposed to be the big day - according to a handful of libs I talked to over the weekend. So much for that.

I think Congress should NOT get paid until they identify the people responsible for this mess.

They should continue to deregulate, and that includes dumping the CRA. Regulation via the CRA got us into this mess in the first place.

I wish Charles had put a fourth HELL NO option.

re: #9 jorline

Do I want the same people who manage Social Security and Medicare to watch my bank? I don't think so!

Or my healthcare issues.

re: #10 Desert Dog

We entering a slippery slope with all of this bailout business......I hope we do not fall down

Falling Down
excellent movie

"Fuck you very much captain"

the line of the movie, if you ask me.....

re: #16 Adrenalyn

I think Congress should NOT get paid until they identify the people responsible for this mess.

That's better. They should be part-time with real-world jobs.

re: #15 FrogMarch

Tuesday was supposed to be the big day - according to a handful of libs I talked to over the weekend. So much for that.

The big day for...?

re: #21 Honorary Yooper

That's better. They should be part-time with real-world jobs.

how about not get laid
we need a hookers strike in DC

re: #3 jwb7605

I clicked not sure. If there were any guarantee that the shares would be sold back, I'd vote yes. If there were guarantees the gov't would hold them forever, I'd vote no.

me too. the economic stuff is all greek to me.....

I'm not sure about this one. The govt. is getting interest on its investment and the banks will hopefully return the capital once they return to health.

For sure this is way, way better than the govt. buying the mortgages.

re: #20 Adrenalyn

Almost any movie with Robert Duval is usually good.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to give every homeowner in America $75,000 to pay on their mortgage? Then the money would go to the banks but we would have been helped as well.

Hey, I know where there's money to be made. Baghdad real estate. You just have to be particular about what community you want to live in... or you might find yourself on the wrong side of the tracks:

That's where real estate broker Hadi Abbas Ali has greeted clients for 25 years. Now Ali is witnessing a boom of sorts in the Iraqi capital, where real estate prices have doubled in some areas.

But a sectarian shadow hangs over the boom. Buyers don't look for a river view or simply the best deal in town. Safety-conscious Shiites seek housing in walled-in areas dominated by their sect, and Sunnis stick to their own as well.

With little new construction afoot, there are far more buyers or renters than available homes in places like Karradah, a mostly Shiite area where Ali is hard-pressed to shrink his waiting list.

Then again, is that really all that different than ethnic enclaves anywhere else in the world?

re: #14 Occasional Reader

Oh, come on, they'll have your bank running every bit as efficiently as Amtrak!

LOL...asleep at the wheel...sure to derail.

It was government interference that created this mess. I like the way it's portrayed at Michelle Malkin's site: "Crap Sandwich 2.0".

Shippers cannot get Letters of Credit. International cargo IS grinding to a halt. Freight rates are plunging.

If the liquidity crisis is not addressed head on we will see a massive economic disruption. This is the real world. OUR EXPORTS cannot be sold if the banks fail.

If the Fed thinks using the allocated crises funds to buy stock in the banks then it is an idea that can be tried.

Of course, I hope they manage their/our investment wisely...

I would vote yes if Bush's quote "The government's role will be limited and temporary" wasn't complete and utter BS. What has the government had involvement in that has been either temporary or limited. Pie in the sky.

OT:

Rick Sanchez is on CNN right now running an absolute gutter smear story trying to make a big deal out of Todd Palin having joined the Alaska Independence Party and Sarah Palin's videotaped greeting to AIP convention goers as governor. They are trying to make this into a bigger deal than Barack Obama actually allowing a real convicted terrorist to host the launch event of his political career in his living room.

The depths of CNN's liberal bias seemingly can't be measured by conventional means. I'm utterly disgusted that they call themselves a "news" organization; all they are right now is a 24/7 propaganda arm of the Obama campaign.

All right! My bank being run just as well as the DMV! Woo Hoo!

/sarc (obviously)

Seriously, when are Bahney Fwank and company going to have their tiny liberal testicles roasted over a fire for this?

Voted "not sure" beause I just don't know.

re: #19 newsjunkie_ky

Or my healthcare issues.

And the list grows...next thing you know they'll want to run my life.

Wait...isn't that what Obama want's to do?

re: #17 Honorary Yooper

They should continue to deregulate, and that includes dumping the CRA. Regulation via the CRA got us into this mess in the first place.

I heard sooper-genius Joseph Stiglitz being interviewed on the radio. He said, in essence; we need more good bank regulation, and less bad bank regulation. Wow! Check out the big brain on Joe! No wonder he was Chief Economist at the World Bank.

re: #14 Occasional Reader

Oh, come on, they'll have your bank running every bit as efficiently as Amtrak!

A roommate of mine once took Amtrak from Boston to Chicago and arrived 24 HOURS late. Yeah, let 'em run the banks, health care, and what ever else we don't need.

Don't see how it could be a worse idea than the previous ones.

Let's see,

education - check
entertainment - check
news and media - check
banking and finance - check
healthcare - soon to be check

It's not creeping socialism....it is steamrolling socialism

It depends on your definition of shares. If it is cumulative preferred stock that has its rate increased if it does payment in kind along with a liquidation preference, then I do think its a good idea. It injects capital into the banking system and allows the government to get its capital back with interest at some point in the future. If we are talking common shares, then I have a problem with that. Part of the current meltdown is due to undue government pressure on some of the banks to make loans of dubious quality to dubious borrowers.

re: #37 jorline

And the list grows...next thing you know they'll want to run my life.

Wait...isn't that what Obama want's to do?

"He's gonna chaaange it... re-araaaange it...."

/creepy child singing voice

I voted no because propping up share prices of banks doesn't address the underlying issues with the banks themselves - all the toxic paper. It makes it more difficult for banks to buy each other if the prices are being artificially sustained at levels because of government ownership of shares.

The banks need additional capital to get credit lines flowing again, and that will come as the toxic paper gets unwound, but who owns the banks doesn't address that - only who's on the hook should the banks fail and how much has been spent to keep them on life support.

Here's the money quote:

Some of the nation's largest banks had to be pressured by to participate by Paulson, who wanted healthy institutions that did not necessarily need capital from the government to go first as a way of removing any stigma that might be associated with banks getting bailouts.

So the government is taking some control of perfectly healthy banks to get rid of the stigma. Somehow, I have a hard time swallowing that particular explanation.

source:
Government Moves Again to Unclog Credit Lines

re: #22 Occasional Reader

The big day for...?

The stock market. Or maybe what they meant was- "buy on Tuesday."

re: #16 Adrenalyn

I think Congress should NOT get paid until they identify the people responsible for this mess.

Agree...I said this when the sky started falling.

Q What's the difference between a failed CEO and Congress?
A Congress still gets paid!

re: #37 jorline

And the list grows...next thing you know they'll want to run my life.

Wait...isn't that what Obama want's to do?

Yes he does. And the dems are already taking away little freedoms every day.

re: #34 LemonJoose

OT:

Rick Sanchez is on CNN right now running an absolute gutter smear story trying to make a big deal out of Todd Palin having joined the Alaska Independence Party and Sarah Palin's videotaped greeting to AIP convention goers as governor. They are trying to make this into a bigger deal than Barack Obama actually allowing a real convicted terrorist to host the launch event of his political career in his living room.

The depths of CNN's liberal bias seemingly can't be measured by conventional means. I'm utterly disgusted that they call themselves a "news" organization; all they are right now is a 24/7 propaganda arm of the Obama campaign.

and still people want McCain to play nice
sheesh.....

please John McCain, if you or the folks running your campaign read this:

you are running (and debating) against the Democrat Party and their allies in the media
not Obama himself
but you have to attack him
the party
the media

you have a real ripe opportunity tommorow too
take CBS ot the woodshed over the Dan Rather fake doc's
make Shieffer want to crawl under his desk

take a pocket full of acorns with you too
toss them around, literally
someone will have to tell mister and missus America what the significance is

re: #44 lawhawk

I voted no because propping up share prices of banks doesn't address the underlying issues with the banks themselves - all the toxic paper. It makes it more difficult for banks to buy each other if the prices are being artificially sustained at levels because of government ownership of shares.

The banks need additional capital to get credit lines flowing again, and that will come as the toxic paper gets unwound, but who owns the banks doesn't address that - only who's on the hook should the banks fail and how much has been spent to keep them on life support.

The last plan was for the govt. to buy the toxic paper. That seemed totally whacked to me because the govt. would be setting the price....probably over paying.

This plan seems better. Basically loan the banks the money and give them 5 years to repay at 5%. That should give them the time needed to recapitalize and take care of the mortgage issues.

re: #39 freedombilly

Yeah, let 'em run the banks, health care, and what ever else we don't need.

..ahh, what they hay, I agree.

The thing is, there's so much more to this than "should the gov't buy bank shares." That's just one tiny slice of the ongoing clusterf*** that got us to where we are now with the CRA and Dem corruption around Fannie/Freddie being a big slice of that ugly pie. Given the terrible errors that put us in this state, can we avoid buying bank shares right now? Probably not.

Speaking of a crisis.

Obama spending proposals?
1.3 Trillion.

Current budget?
2.7 Trillion.

Obama is proposing a 50% increase in Federal spending.

Change!

*drive by post*

re: #34 LemonJoose

I wonder if these CNN programs get paid by the Obama team? CNN is ceaseless in its endorsements and panderings to Obama. They are obviously on the campaign for Obama.

Oh, and I just heard that the BBC (in a panting and breathless voice) has just announced that it will be featuring (a non-stop) following of the Obama team with a Beeb reporter as Obama makes the final rounds to the undecided States...

re: #47 jorline

Agree...I said this when the sky started falling.

Q What's the difference between a failed CEO and Congress?
A Congress still gets paid!

I have not seen many CEO's going down with the ship. They are the first ones to bail out....with a nice and fat golden parachute, usually. It is the employees and vendors of the company that take the hit.

Of course, Congress has taken ineptitude to a new level, one previously thought unattainable.

Considering how well the government runs just about everything else, I don't think it is a good idea for them to be buying into the banks. Besides this could lead to legislation that would favor the banks that the government owns shares in, giving them an unfair advantage against other banks. Let the free market right itself. Yes it will hurt for a while, but sometimes pain just means that healing is occurring.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it. i am also leaving before anyone calls me an idiot. :-) Later Lizards! See you anon.

Should the government buy shares in private banks?

The Government can't even manage the money they're sent in taxes!

re: #41 Desert Dog

Let's see,

education - check
entertainment - check
news and media - check
banking and finance - check
healthcare - soon to be check

It's not creeping socialism....it is steamrolling socialism

and, first black, and closet marxist, president - .............3 weeks and - check

Socialism of the US of A, complete.

I pray not, but I fear the worst

re: #47 jorline

Agree...I said this when the sky started falling.

Q What's the difference between a failed CEO and Congress?
A Congress still gets paid!

..unfortunately so does the failed CEO.

re: #53 jcm

Speaking of a crisis.

Obama spending proposals?
1.3 Trillion.

Current budget?
2.7 Trillion.

Obama is proposing a 50% increase in Federal spending.

Change!

*drive by post*

AND....he will do all of this with 95% of the people getting a tax cut! Obamini the Great - It must be magic, cause it is impossible otherwise.

A penny saved is a Congressional spending oversight.

re: #32 experiencedtraveller

Shippers cannot get Letters of Credit. International cargo IS grinding to a halt. Freight rates are plunging.

Is it? I have my doubts about that.

If life was crashing to a halt, don't you think there would be MSNBC reporters at the shipyard, interviewing people who couldn't get letters of credit? If things are so dire, why aren't the news sources exploiting it to the hilt? Because you know, every bad economic story makes McCain look bad, because he's a Republican. We should be seeing 'little guy crushed by the economic collapse' stories several times an hour on the network and cable news. Yet I haven't seen any.

IF you want the Government in your banking business, JUST THINK DMV! 'nuff said

re: #47 jorline

Agree...I said this when the sky started falling.

Q What's the difference between a failed CEO and Congress?
A Congress still gets paid!

Obviously you've not seen the sizes of some of those golden parachutes. I could live off one of them and not work for the rest of my natural life (and that's at least 40 more years!).

OT another vile Palin smear

re: #57 Sharmuta

re: #61 Sharmuta

You're on fire! Haven't updinged two comments by the same person that quickly ever.

re: #53 jcm

Speaking of a crisis.

Obama spending proposals?
1.3 Trillion.

Current budget?
2.7 Trillion.

Obama is proposing a 50% increase in Federal spending.

Change!

*drive by post*

Well GWB and congress took a budget of 1.8 trillion in 2000 and somehow swelled it to 2.7 trillion. What's another 1.3?

hey, we should outsource our banking to India

like the world bank did with their security

not sure if any of you know where that got them
but I'll offer a hint....

massive data loss/theft
traced to I.P. addresses in...................

China

I clicked not sure. If there were any guarantee that the shares would be sold back, I'd vote yes. If there were guarantees the gov't would hold them forever, I'd vote no.

It's my understanding that the government will hold the shares for a maximum of three years.

re: #63 saberry0530

IF you want the Government in your banking business, JUST THINK DMV! 'nuff said

That's good enough reason the government to stay away from...
banking
health care
construction
power generation
rail, road, air, and water-borne freight
rail, air, and water-borne passenger traffic
manufacturing of any sort
hell, damn near everything.

re: #67 unrealizedviewpoint

Well GWB and congress took a budget of 1.8 trillion in 2000 and somehow swelled it to 2.7 trillion. What's another 1.3?

well, doubling in 8 years is not inherently bad
an investor would hope to double their money in 8 years

re: #65 ROPMA

OT another vile Palin smear

How did you find that?

re: #69 SixDegrees

It's my understanding that the government will hold the shares for a maximum of three years.

Unless 3 years isn't long enough.

Imagine Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Frank as major shareholders of all the significant banks in the US. Even though the govt would own non-voting preferred shares, imagine the influence a major shareholder would have upon the operations/policies/lending decisions of those banks. You would no longer need proxies such as ACORN, La Raza, Greenlighting, etc. to force banks to lend to sub-prime borrowers.

re: #65 ROPMA

OT another vile Palin smear

Larry Flint is an asshole of epic proportions, IMHO. And his girly mag sucks too.

Barney Frank lied
My 401K died

re: #32 experiencedtraveller

Of course, I hope they manage their/our investment wisely...

Which, to my mind, includes "seek to exit, gracefully, as soon as possible".

re: #75 Honorary Yooper

Larry Flint is an asshole of epic proportions, IMHO. And his girly mag sucks too.

Sorry, couldnt resist.

Should the government buy shares in private banks?

Three words: House banking scandal.

Barney Frank blew
away my life savings

re: #35 Power Armored Lizardoid

All right! My bank being run just as well as the DMV! Woo Hoo!

/sarc (obviously)

Don't forget the U.S. Postal Service... oh, and the IRS!

re: #62 shibumi

Is it? I have my doubts about that.

If life was crashing to a halt, don't you think there would be MSNBC reporters at the shipyard, interviewing people who couldn't get letters of credit? If things are so dire, why aren't the news sources exploiting it to the hilt? Because you know, every bad economic story makes McCain look bad, because he's a Republican. We should be seeing 'little guy crushed by the economic collapse' stories several times an hour on the network and cable news. Yet I haven't seen any.

Here's one story about just situation. An excerpt:

"There's all kinds of stuff stacked up on docks right now that can't be shipped because people can't get letters of credit," said Bill Gary, president of Commodity Information Systems in Oklahoma City. "The problem is not demand, and it's not supply because we have plenty of supply. It's finding anyone who can come up with the credit to buy."

re: #73 unrealizedviewpoint

Unless 3 years isn't long enough.

Agree, what new gov. program only lasted 3 years.

re: #65 ROPMA

maybe American Carol can add a scene of Palin beating the crap out of Larry Flint.

I actually voted yes only because there needs to be some equity stake that the taxpayer gets in return for the bailout...No?
I hate the idea of federally owned banks, but if they are going to collapse due to mismanagement that would force the FDIC to intervene and bailout depositors, then yes, I want a taxholder stake in the associated bailout and any future profits as they are on the hook for the loss.
Once the bank is back in the black, then the stake would need to be divested. The problem is how to keep Congress from playing with any newly bought merchandise.

It isn't a perfect solution I admit and I am open to looking at better ones that leave shareholders at risk more then taxpayers. Shareholders at least should understand the risks associated with purchasing the shares. They know it can go to zero and have legal recourse if they want to pursue mismanagement options, but the taxpayer is just plan getting screwed.

re: #55 Desert Dog

I have not seen many CEO's going down with the ship. They are the first ones to bail out....with a nice and fat golden parachute, usually. It is the employees and vendors of the company that take the hit.

Of course, Congress has taken ineptitude to a new level, one previously thought unattainable.

Tie the American public favorability rating to their pay.

Salary for a Congressman is 150K...with the current favorability rating of 9%...new pay rate is $13,500.

and it's not supply because we have plenty of supply.

It's finding anyone who can come up with the credit to buy.

Buzzsaw, where are you?

A. "Aw what the hell? Go for it!"

B. "Would you be so good as to pull this chair from under me? Thanks so much..."

C. "Don't bother me!" *bong*

I don't want to see any more $'s go into the "bail out" until I see real effort being undertaken to out all of the players.

I believe the share purchase includes agreements to curtail executive pay and bonuses. Depending on the position the share purchases grant - presumably a significant majority - the government will also be in a position to modify contracts and fire executives. I believe this is what happened at AIG - the chairman was sacked the morning after the purchase.

I would keep a close eye on this, nonetheless. Those responsible for this mess absolutely should not wind up being rewarded for surviving it. In many cases, I suspect criminal charges may be appropriate, particularly for those companies which made loans to obviously unqualified borrowers.

re: #42 Shr_Nfr

It depends on your definition of shares. If it is cumulative preferred stock that has its rate increased if it does payment in kind along with a liquidation preference, then I do think its a good idea. It injects capital into the banking system and allows the government to get its capital back with interest at some point in the future. If we are talking common shares, then I have a problem with that. Part of the current meltdown is due to undue government pressure on some of the banks to make loans of dubious quality to dubious borrowers.

My understanding is that it would be non-voting common stock.

re: #71 Adrenalyn

well, doubling in 8 years is not inherently bad
an investor would hope to double their money in 8 years

As I was typing, I was thinking the same. But we're not discussing investment. This are expenditures. Somehow I believe they need grow at a slower pace. That or we need anticipate tax revenues need grow by double. And only Ronald Reagan could do that. Taxes can only be cut by so much to stimulate an economy. He had a significant high point to start from.

re: #64 Honorary Yooper

Obviously you've not seen the sizes of some of those golden parachutes. I could live off one of them and not work for the rest of my natural life (and that's at least 40 more years!).

Point well taken...my original answer was Nothing.

See my #86.

re: #92 unrealizedviewpoint

this = these

jeez. pimf

I voted "No", but if possible, I would have voted "Hell NO!".

re: #54 J.S.

I wonder if these CNN programs get paid by the Obama team? CNN is ceaseless in its endorsements and panderings to Obama. They are obviously on the campaign for Obama.

CNN is providing an "in-kind" campaign contribution and should be forced by the FEC to acknowledge it after every commercial break.

Same for the rest of the Alphabet Networks.

I'm not sure. Soros said it's a good idea, you figure the odds. But, I think, in some cases, it may be good, so I voted yes.

hey it let me vote before I was logged in.

Uncle Sam:

Take your hands out of my pocket and out out my bank.

Hi all!..
just seeing what color I am.

Charles I'm a little surprised you haven't relayed the video of that plumber asking Obama about raising his taxes...and Obama's response tipping his hand that he plans to turn this country into France.

re: #98 itellu3times

hey it let me vote before I was logged in.

Charles outsourced this poll to ACORN.

re: #82 JustMyView

where are these items shipping?
The only people I know who require letter of credit to ship are those who are shipping overseas? Letters of Credit are available when the funds are in the consignees bank. I seriously doubt that US banks will not give a letter of credit to an overseas company if said company has the funds in the overseas bank.

If the bank shares are undervalued, let them be acquired by private capital on the free market.

If they're not publically trading, then the gov't should DOUBLY stay out of this.

We just don't need the Fed butting in here.
This isn't Europe.

re: #100 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

Hi all!..
just seeing what color I am.

Hey, this election is not about race!

/

"The most terrifying words in the English language are,'I'm from the government and I'm here to help"'

"The nearest thing to eternal life that we will ever see on this earth is a government program."

Ronald Reagan

I vote no

gwG

re: #13 CoCo

Can we vote "Present"?

That would actually be a funny replacement for "Ron Paul" on these polls.

re: #82 JustMyView

I stand corrected. However, from what I can tell, this part of the picture hasn't been exploited by the MSM, and they take every opportunity they can to bash Bush. That's why I was suspect.

re: #27 Desert Dog

Almost any movie with Robert Duval is usually good.

"Hey, Boo."

Wow...my nic looks a little seasick.

Eco-friendly nic

re: #96 Sharmuta

I voted "No", but if possible, I would have voted "Hell NO!".

What really sucks is that banks and other financial institutions who did not dive into the Mortgage-Backed Security feeding frenzy and are now sitting pretty (enough to buy up the failed investment banks, for instance) are being forced against their will to accept federal government "intervention".

Seems rather old-school Fascist to me.

re: #90 taxfreekiller

Al Gore/Global Warming Bull Shit Crisis Watch

[Link: www.redriverskiarea.com...]

go to live cams, the second cam, up mountain, blizzard

Whoopee do. It's socialism through the back door. So now the government, which already controls most banking practices (including CRAp) through FDIC/and or Comptroller's Office regulations, is now basically buying banks. One less thing for Jesus Obama to nationalize if he's elected Fuhrer.

re: #94 taxfreekiller

eeeeeeeeewwwwww, I'm green

Aren't lizards suppose to be green?

re: #86 jorline

Tie the American public favorability rating to their pay.

Salary for a Congressman is 150K...with the current favorability rating of 9%...new pay rate is $13,500.

I LOVE THIS IDEA!

re: #100 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

LOL me too. :)

re: #29 lawhawk

Hey, I know where there's money to be made. Baghdad real estate. You just have to be particular about what community you want to live in... or you might find yourself on the wrong side of the tracks:

Then again, is that really all that different than ethnic enclaves anywhere else in the world?

they are called "gated communities" here. :-)>

re: #110 jamgarr

I mentioned that on an earlier thread and I don't think
anybody caught it.

re: #114 FloridaAnole

It's socialism through the back door.

Well, Rep. Frank had a lot to do with it, after all.

re: #112 Spiny Norman

What really sucks is that banks and other financial institutions who did not dive into the Mortgage-Backed Security feeding frenzy and are now sitting pretty (enough to buy up the failed investment banks, for instance) are being forced against their will to accept federal government "intervention".

Seems rather old-school Fascist to me.

Absolutely!

re: #43 Occasional Reader

"He's gonna chaaange it... re-araaaange it...."

/creepy child singing voice

Wasn't "rules and regulations, who needs them?" a line from that song?

The government is not going to run the banks, they are just giving a much-needed cash infusion. The shares are non-voting shares. And when the shares rise in value, the government sells them to make a profit, which pays down the national deficit.

What helped cause the Great Depression? The world governments did nothing as the financial corporations crumbled around them.

re: #120 Occasional Reader

Now that was rude.

;^)

re: #119 Mike in Georgia

I mentioned that on an earlier thread and I don't think
anybody caught it.

It's a reference to that popular Mexican cocktail, the "Tequila Mockingbird".

re: #123 charles_martel

The government is not going to run the banks, they are just giving a much-needed cash infusion. The shares are non-voting shares. And when the shares rise in value, the government sells them to make a profit, which pays down the national deficit.

What helped cause the Great Depression? The world governments did nothing as the financial corporations crumbled around them.

So why don't they simply make a loan instead?

re: #34 LemonJoose

OT:

Rick Sanchez is on CNN right now running an absolute gutter smear story trying to make a big deal out of Todd Palin having joined the Alaska Independence Party and Sarah Palin's videotaped greeting to AIP convention goers as governor. They are trying to make this into a bigger deal than Barack Obama actually allowing a real convicted terrorist to host the launch event of his political career in his living room.

The depths of CNN's liberal bias seemingly can't be measured by conventional means. I'm utterly disgusted that they call themselves a "news" organization; all they are right now is a 24/7 propaganda arm of the Obama campaign.

Wow! That shit was debunked a month ago. What idiots CNN hires.

Imagine your bank operating like the DMV.
Or any other government office.................

Power to the Correct People!
(They believe in FREE enterprise.)

re: #125 Occasional Reader

I knew you'd get it.

Oh, and since we're talking economics, looks like oil prices are going to keep dropping.. under $80. OPEC - and Russia, Iran and Venezuela in particular aren't liking this turn of events. It puts a serious crimp in their spending habits.

re: #86 jorline

Tie the American public favorability rating to their pay.

Salary for a Congressman is 150K...with the current favorability rating of 9%...new pay rate is -$13,500.

fixed that, they should pay us

re: #122 jamgarr

Wasn't "rules and regulations, who needs them?" a line from that song?

"Won't you please vote in Chicago..."
(even if you're dead)

re: #123 charles_martel

The government is not going to run the banks, they are just giving a much-needed cash infusion. The shares are non-voting shares. And when the shares rise in value, the government sells them to make a profit, which pays down the national deficit.

What helped cause the Great Depression? The world governments did nothing as the financial corporations crumbled around them.

A decision of President Hoover's that the country paid for right up through the 1950's.

re: #120 Occasional Reader

Well, Rep. Frank had a lot to do with it, after all.

Yeah, it looks like he's doing the whole country.

What a swell idea. Nationalize 9 major banks, then potentially turn them over to Obama, president of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Amerikkka. Watch the remaining depositors flee to non-nationalized banks.

re: #41 Desert Dog

Let's see,

education - check
entertainment - check
news and media - check
banking and finance - check
healthcare - soon to be check

It's not creeping socialism....it is steamrolling socialism

heavy sigh.....you are right!

If the government is going to be doing business with my bank, does this mean I can manage my account the way the government manages theirs- meaning our tax dollars?

Because I've always wanted a $150,000 screwdriver.....

re: #126 looking closely

So why don't they simply make a loan instead?

Wouldn't you prefer an equity stake rather then a note?

I'm not sure about this one. The govt. is getting interest on its investment and the banks will hopefully return the capital once they return to health.

For sure this is way, way better than the govt. buying the mortgages.

Probably true. At a minimum, the value of the bank shares purchased can be determined. The value of the toxic paper that's causing all the problems cannot be, at the moment, and there is a large risk of paying too much or too little for it. This move buys an asset of known, determinable value, restores liquidity by injecting capitol into the banks, and gives the banks some time to unwrap the questionable assets and sell their underlying mortgages, which for the most part are still worth something.

The net result, once the government sells back the shares, at least has a possibility of being a wash, perhaps even a money-maker for the government.

Even if the banks fail, as a preferred shareholder the government is near the front of the line to receive a portion of whatever the bank's underlying assets are. Unlike common shareholders, who are dead last.

I haven't heard yet how the reverse transfer is supposed to take place. I'm assuming the banks will repurchase their shares, rather than flooding the market with them, in order to maintain share price.

re: #123 charles_martel

The government is not going to run the banks, they are just giving a much-needed cash infusion. The shares are non-voting shares. And when the shares rise in value, the government sells them to make a profit, which pays down the national deficit.

What helped cause the Great Depression? The world governments did nothing as the financial corporations crumbled around them.

No, they hardly did "nothing", they had an international trade protectionism and tariff war prompted by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

re: #126 looking closely

That would be a good idea, I don't know. I do know that the government eventually made a profit from Chrysler's bail-out. It saved a major American company (which preserved jobs and tax revenue), and didn't cost us anything.

I'm against nationalizing the banks, but honestly haven taken a look around -- or more accurately, reading the word of economists I trust -- I think this may be the way to go. Not buying into the banks may be cutting off our national nose to spite our face. It's theory over practice.

Here's why I believe that. Here's an excerpt from the New York Times about an economist named Nouriel Roubini. Please note the date:

On

Sept. 7, 2006, Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University, stood before an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund and announced that a crisis was brewing. In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession. He laid out a bleak sequence of events: homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt. These developments, he went on, could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The guy knows what he's talking about, and spoke the truth even when others -- as noted later in the story -- laughed in his face.

So. Having identified the problem, here's his prescription. Bear in mind that he is not a politician. He deals strictly -- and brilliantly -- with numbers:

- another rapid round of policy rate cuts of the order of at least 150 basis points on average globally;

- a temporary blanket guarantee of all deposits while a triage between insolvent financial institutions that need to be shut down and distressed but solvent institutions that need to be partially nationalized with injections of public capital is made;

- a rapid reduction of the debt burden of insolvent households preceded by a temporary freeze on all foreclosures;

- massive and unlimited provision of liquidity to solvent financial institutions;

- public provision of credit to the solvent parts of the corporate sector to avoid a short-term debt refinancing crisis for solvent but illiquid corporations and small businesses;

- a massive direct government fiscal stimulus packages that includes public works, infrastructure spending, unemployment benefits, tax rebates to lower income households and provision of grants to strapped and crunched state and local government;

- a rapid resolution of the banking problems via triage, public recapitalization of financial institutions and reduction of the debt burden of distressed households and borrowers;

- an agreement between lender and creditor countries running current account surpluses and borrowing and debtor countries running current account deficits to maintain an orderly financing of deficits and a recycling of the surpluses of creditors to avoid a disorderly adjustment of such imbalances.

Yeah, it's ugly. And yeah it makes me angry, because the irresponsible morons among us have dragged the rest of us -- the vast majority of us -- into the mud.

Thanks, shiftless buffoons.

I had to go with not sure. I generally don't look favorably on government bailouts, but lack of available credit lines is really hurting my clients. And when they don't have money, I don't get paid. I have many friends and collegues experiencing similar challenges. This will put cash into the system and get banks lending again. I just wish I had the confidence that this wouldn't get back-burnered or swept under the rug as soon as the current crisis subsides. There are so many bad things about it, but I fear the consequences of doing nothing.

re: #130 lawhawk

Oh, and since we're talking economics, looks like oil prices are going to keep dropping.. under $80. OPEC - and Russia, Iran and Venezuela in particular aren't liking this turn of events. It puts a serious crimp in their spending habits.

Don't you just love silver linings?

re: #123 charles_martel

What helped cause the Great Depression? The world governments did nothing as the financial corporations crumbled around them.

It wasn't that they did nothing, it was that gov'ts did the wrong things, at least with the perspective of hindsight. For instance, raising taxes, tariffs, among other dumb ideas.

re: #130 lawhawk

Oh, and since we're talking economics, looks like oil prices are going to keep dropping.. under $80. OPEC - and Russia, Iran and Venezuela in particular aren't liking this turn of events. It puts a serious crimp in their spending habits.

The lower price of crude could lead to a spiraling lower oil proce. To maintain their revenue as much as possible as demand drops, OPEC countries typically over-ship their quotas - causing a further glut in supply.

If we are talking common shares, then I have a problem with that.

No. They are definitely preferred shares.

re: #122 jamgarr

Wasn't "rules and regulations, who needs them?" a line from that song?

Well.....I guess that line IS from "Chicago".....seems apropos

re: #130 lawhawk

Oh, and since we're talking economics, looks like oil prices are going to keep dropping.. under $80. OPEC - and Russia, Iran and Venezuela in particular aren't liking this turn of events. It puts a serious crimp in their spending habits.

Vladimir might have to cut back on his "Videos of Me Doing Manly Stuff". Or, he can just skim off a few more millions for himself and continue.

And, Hugo might have curtail his Russian weapon wishlist.

re: #138 unrealizedviewpoint

Wouldn't you prefer an equity stake rather then a note?

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of timing the market.

"Hi, I'm your new 25% partner".
Doesn't that remind you of the Mob?

re: #144 Sharmuta

Don't you just love silver linings?

LOL! Yes indeed...

re: #142 Cognito

Did I just invent a word, there? "Haven" as a past form of "have"?

Should have been, "having taken," but somehow "haven" strikes me as ideal.

Haven looked once more, I stand by it!

re: #141 charles_martel

That would be a good idea, I don't know. I do know that the government eventually made a profit from Chrysler's bail-out. It saved a major American company (which preserved jobs and tax revenue), and didn't cost us anything.

The Chrysler bail-out cost the taxpayers nothing because the "bail-out" was loan guarantees: no Treasury money was ever involved because banks loaned Chrysler money that was paid back in full.

re: #146 DeafDog

The lower price of crude could lead to a spiraling lower oil proce. To maintain their revenue as much as possible as demand drops, OPEC countries typically over-ship their quotas - causing a further glut in supply.

Yep, I'm looking forward to the bitter OPEC infighting.

re: #90 taxfreekiller

We had FOUR FEET at Red Lodge, MT, over the weekend.

If banks want to raise money by selling equity, what's stopping them? If the deal looks good, private capital (and there is still boatloads of it out there sitting on the sidelines) will come in and scoop it up.

Why does the gov't need to intervene?

Is there a time frame in which the government has to get out of my bank?

They also required other Department of Energy employees to sign confidentiality agreements, promising not to disclose Mourad's crime, in order to retain their employment. And finally, Abraham and Otis threatened Energy employees with retaliation in the form of lawsuits and prosecution, were they to disclose Mourad's crime.

[Link: debbieschlussel.com...]

re: #158 Sharmuta

Is there a time frame in which the government has to get out of my bank?

Three years, from what I gather.

re: #152 Cognito

I be likin' havin', my own self. That's just me, though. You say haven, I say havin'.

Think this through. On behalf of American taxpayers, the gov't is buying preferred shares of major US banks. We are the clients.

These shares could pay handsome dividends. Thinking of all the rat-holes our taxes have been down in the past, like ACORN, Fannie and Freddie, this, to me makes sense and could be a precursor for ways to fund Social Security and Medicare in the future. Again, the gov't is playing capitalism here not socialism.

re: #152 Cognito

Did I just invent a word, there? "Haven" as a past form of "have"?

Should have been, "having taken," but somehow "haven" strikes me as ideal.

Haven looked once more, I stand by it!

It's the past-perfect conditional future tense of "have"

re: #161 Spiny Norman

Three years, from what I gather.

Why couldn't that be extended with the stroke of a pen "for the good of the country"?

Do you trust President Obama and a Democrat Congress NOT to do that?

re: #142 Cognito

So, that's where and how Obama got his idea for foreclosure moratoriums (albeit cribbed from Hillary). It's an awful idea that does not address the reason for the foreclosure in the first place and keeps the banks hands tied while unable to move their assets off their books.

re: #154 Occasional Reader

Yep, I'm looking forward to the bitter OPEC infighting.

Of course, the negative backlash to this is that the USA will be less anxious to develop out own resources....setting us up for another 'crisis' in a few years.

re: #164 jamgarr

It's the past-perfect conditional future tense of "have"

Damn this Time Machine Grammar!

I mean, would have haven damned... oh, forget it.

re: #157 looking closely

If banks want to raise money by selling equity, what's stopping them? If the deal looks good, private capital (and there is still boatloads of it out there sitting on the sidelines) will come in and scoop it up.

Why does the gov't need to intervene?

Banks that wish to sell equity to the Fed is one thing, but the Fed is forcing everyone to join in, even ones that don't need or want government "help".

If you think nationalizing the banks is a problem, wait a little while until the Big Three automakers are through with their ongoing implosion and need to be "saved". I am speculating that GM, Ford and Chrysler may be impossible to save, because they are organized to manufacture and sell only vehicles that no one wants any more, and at high cost. They are not going to be able to survive on their own. Dodge is giving away brand new pickups for one-half sticker price, and I've heard of even better deals. That is pure desperation. Loaning them money as was done with Chrysler in the past would probably be impossible, since they are turning into money pits. So, nationalizing them may be the only alternative to letting them just go into liquidation.

If they hadn't committed to the bailout then a resounding "NO" however, seeing as how they did...

re: #38 Occasional Reader

I heard sooper-genius Joseph Stiglitz being interviewed on the radio. He said, in essence; we need more good bank regulation, and less bad bank regulation. Wow! Check out the big brain on Joe! No wonder he was Chief Economist at the World Bank.

There should be two Nobel bank regulation prizes.

re: #163 Quintus_Arius

Think this through. On behalf of American taxpayers, the gov't is buying preferred shares of major US banks. We are the clients.

If the shares are so great, then why isn't private capital buying them up?

re: #165 looking closely

Why couldn't that be extended with the stroke of a pen "for the good of the country"?

Do you trust President Obama and a Democrat Congress NOT to do that?

There's the problem. The old "camel's nose in the tent" scenario.

re: #171 Ruthless

If you think nationalizing the banks is a problem, wait a little while until the Big Three automakers are through with their ongoing implosion and need to be "saved". I am speculating that GM, Ford and Chrysler may be impossible to save, because they are organized to manufacture and sell only vehicles that no one wants any more, and at high cost. They are not going to be able to survive on their own. Dodge is giving away brand new pickups for one-half sticker price, and I've heard of even better deals. That is pure desperation. Loaning them money as was done with Chrysler in the past would probably be impossible, since they are turning into money pits. So, nationalizing them may be the only alternative to letting them just go into liquidation.

Aren't unions wonderful?

re: #78 A Kiwi Infidel
filecabi.net

re: #75 Honorary Yooper
agreed

re: #84 Eowyn2
excellent idea

re: #168 Occasional Reader

Damn this Time Machine Grammar!

I mean, would have haven damned... oh, forget it.

I was actually reading the Milliways chapter of RATEOTU last night.

/where little expense was spared to create the impression that no expense was spared.

re: #123 charles_martel

The government is not going to run the banks, they are just giving a much-needed cash infusion. The shares are non-voting shares. And when the shares rise in value, the government sells them to make a profit, which pays down the national deficit.

What helped cause the Great Depression? The world governments did nothing as the financial corporations crumbled around them.

Speaking as a former commerical banker, the government has been pretty much running the banks since the Nixon administration. It got worse during Carter, particularly after they imposed the first CRA on us during the late 1970's. Fortunately, the Controllers Office back then was more interested in asset quality (i.e., that we didn't have too many substandard loans in our portfolios) rather than whether we had made a certain percentage of loans to people with no credit or substandard credit.

I would have to read the accompany USCode that will regulate this new ownership, but dollars to doughnuts it provides for even closer "oversight" of banks. (I'm glad I got out of banking at the beginning of the Clinton years.)

re: #165 looking closely

Why couldn't that be extended with the stroke of a pen "for the good of the country"?

Do you trust President Obama and a Democrat Congress NOT to do that?

Do you trust McCain not to do that?
LOL

The real potential for mischief here doesn't lie with government overtly manipulating the banks for political gain. It lies with the potential for the government to manipulate the economy in order to adjust it's own revenue stream, by either raising or lowering the stock price. A significant move in either direction can easily sway an election. This is the sort of mischief I would be on the lookout for

Attempts to rework the three-year limit which I believe is built into this action should be viewed with extreme suspicion and alarm.

re: #137 Sharmuta

If the government is going to be doing business with my bank, does this mean I can manage my account the way the government manages theirs- meaning our tax dollars?

Because I've always wanted a $150,000 screwdriver.....

Ding!

And you can write all the checks you want...self fund yourself more cash when you need it.

re: #171 Ruthless

If you think nationalizing the banks is a problem, wait a little while until the Big Three automakers are through with their ongoing implosion and need to be "saved". I am speculating that GM, Ford and Chrysler may be impossible to save, because they are organized to manufacture and sell only vehicles that no one wants any more, and at high cost. They are not going to be able to survive on their own. Dodge is giving away brand new pickups for one-half sticker price, and I've heard of even better deals. That is pure desperation. Loaning them money as was done with Chrysler in the past would probably be impossible, since they are turning into money pits. So, nationalizing them may be the only alternative to letting them just go into liquidation.

The problem with the auto manufacturers is that they need money on credit (and lots of it) to retool and restructure their product line, but nobody wants to lend them the money.

re: #171 Ruthless

If you think nationalizing the banks is a problem, wait a little while until the Big Three automakers are through with their ongoing implosion and need to be "saved". I am speculating that GM, Ford and Chrysler may be impossible to save, because they are organized to manufacture and sell only vehicles that no one wants any more, and at high cost. They are not going to be able to survive on their own. Dodge is giving away brand new pickups for one-half sticker price, and I've heard of even better deals. That is pure desperation. Loaning them money as was done with Chrysler in the past would probably be impossible, since they are turning into money pits. So, nationalizing them may be the only alternative to letting them just go into liquidation.

I disagree. The companies are making decint products, but their cost structure is f_cked (largely because of the unions). The best thing that could happen would be bankrupcy and let the court recapitalize them and forgive their bad debts. I wouldn't touch their stocks even though I like their products.

The government should fix the financial mess.

Just as

Phillip Morris is the man to see about that pesky lung cancer

re: #182 jorline

Ding!

And you can write all the checks you want...self fund yourself more cash when you need it.

Great! Because I also need a $250,000 toilet seat.

re: #183 Spiny Norman

That and the high-cost, no lay-off union contracts that have strangled them for years.

re: #103 Eowyn2

where are these items shipping?
The only people I know who require letter of credit to ship are those who are shipping overseas? Letters of Credit are available when the funds are in the consignees bank. I seriously doubt that US banks will not give a letter of credit to an overseas company if said company has the funds in the overseas bank.

The article does seem to relate to international commerce. I only know what i read there. Check it out for more detail.

re: #62 shibumi

On the actual commerce level (IE: cargo moving through ports) the Credit Crunch is just starting.

Vessels are not moving because they cannot be assured of payment on arrival. Cargo Rates are plunging in anticipation of no credit.

The 'high finance' part of this crises is over and the main street pain will start soon.

re: #169 Spiny Norman

Banks that wish to sell equity to the Fed is one thing, but the Fed is forcing everyone to join in, even ones that don't need or want government "help".

That's the whole point. . .though its not clear to me that the Fed even should be buying equity in those banks that want it to.

The gov't is about as good an "investor" as it it is a healthcare provider (see Social Security program, etc).

If particular banks need capital infusions, then they should issue public offerings, not get sold at gunpoint.

re: #180 unrealizedviewpoint

Do you trust McCain not to do that?
LOL

I don't trust him either, but I trust him FAR more than Tovarisch Obama when it comes to nationalizing things or expanding the role of gov't.

re: #166 lawhawk

According to my reading, the foreclosure bit is merely akin to placing your finger on your shoelace while the other hand finishes the bow knot.

But here's the upshot: I don't believe a single commenter here has a true grasp of what's happening on the global economic scene. Not one. I believe people have some strongly held and generally well-informed views, but not a single person among us has a grasp of the whole scene. If he or she does, he or she should be tossed in jail for wasting time online while the nation suffers.

So having established that my own understanding is not adequate, I do the next best thing: I look around and ask, "Who saw this coming, and said so? Who understood this before the crash."

Not many. And Roubini had the best understanding of anyone in the world, that I've seen.

So having, again, established that his understanding is adequate -- or the most adequate, at least -- I must then ask, "What does he say now?"

Not only no but "HELL NO!"

Hey Charles, how about a "Hell NO!" option on the next poll?

re: #158 Sharmuta

Is there a time frame in which the government has to get out of my bank?

No timeline for withdrawal... oh wait. *grumble*

Oh, and since we're talking economics, looks like oil prices are going to keep dropping.. under $80. OPEC - and Russia, Iran and Venezuela in particular aren't liking this turn of events.

This is especially bad for Venezuela and Iran; their budgets are tied to a considerably higher oil price, and they will have to start reneging on lots of political promises - like huge gasoline price subsidies - that have kept the populace from openly rioting.

It is in our interests as Americans to keep conserving oil and suppressing demand as much as possible in order to take advantage of this.

It won't affect Russia as much - their economy is significantly more diverse - but it sure won't help them, either.

re: #186 Sharmuta

Great! Because I also need a $250,000 toilet seat.

LOL...you could always do what the Russians do...raid a small sovereign country and have your choice of toilet seats.

It's only a good idea, if it is, in comparison to using the same money to buy bad assets, or some other attempted solution.

re: #195 SixDegrees

This is especially bad for Venezuela and Iran; their budgets are tied to a considerably higher oil price, and they will have to start reneging on lots of political promises - like huge gasoline price subsidies - that have kept the populace from openly rioting.

It is in our interests as Americans to keep conserving oil and suppressing demand as much as possible in order to take advantage of this.

It won't affect Russia as much - their economy is significantly more diverse - but it sure won't help them, either.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

;^)

re: #195 SixDegrees

This is especially bad for Venezuela and Iran; their budgets are tied to a considerably higher oil price, and they will have to start reneging on lots of political promises - like huge gasoline price subsidies - that have kept the populace from openly rioting.

It is in our interests as Americans to keep conserving oil and suppressing demand as much as possible in order to take advantage of this.

It won't affect Russia as much - their economy is significantly more diverse - but it sure won't help them, either.

If the price drops too low, they'll need to manufacture a crisis in the middle east to drive prices back up. How do you think they might do that?

When did the nics turn green?
The traffic lights, they turn blue tomorrow.

ON topic:

So the government is going to steal my money to play the market? Why shouldn't I keep my money & use it for what I (you know the sucker that made it) want?!?

Sounds like its time for a taxation revolt.

Why not just give every homeowner $100,000 cash to spend ?

I'll meet you in Vegas wearing my new mink coat

Since we are discussing polls - maybe Lizards can check out this one:

PBS has an online poll posted asking if Sarah Palin is qualified. Apparently the left wing knew about this

in advance and are flooding the voting with NO votes.

The poll will be reported on PBS and picked up by mainstream media. It can influence undecided voters

in swing states.

Please do two things -- takes 20 seconds.

1) Click on link and vote YES!

Here's the link: [Link: www.pbs.org...]

2) Then send this to every McCain-Palin supporter you know, and urge them to vote and pass it on.

The last thing we need is PBS saying their viewers don't think Sarah Palin is qualified.

re: #195 SixDegrees

It won't affect Russia as much - their economy is significantly more diverse - but it sure won't help them, either.

Yes it will. Russia may be more 'diversified' (barely) but they are as corrput as....what do we say....a Chicago Politician. The Russians had to bail out their big oil companies as part of this global credit crisis!

For sure their adventure into the Ukraine is off the table for a while.

re: #181 SixDegrees

The real potential for mischief here doesn't lie with government overtly manipulating the banks for political gain. It lies with the potential for the government to manipulate the economy in order to adjust it's own revenue stream, by either raising or lowering the stock price. A significant move in either direction can easily sway an election. This is the sort of mischief I would be on the lookout for

Attempts to rework the three-year limit which I believe is built into this action should be viewed with extreme suspicion and alarm.

I guess we'd better prepare ourselves to be suspicious and alarmed every few years from now on. Our government would make the Byzantine Empire drop dead of shock, if it hadn't already strangled on its own massive bureacracy, making itself unable to defend itself against the greedy French crusaders, and ultimately, the Turks. (I am in an optimistic mood today, no?)

re: #140 Spiny Norman

Well, nothing in the form of direct help to the banks. Higher taxes and trade wars probably only worsened the problem.

re: #195 SixDegrees

This is especially bad for Venezuela and Iran; their budgets are tied to a considerably higher oil price, and they will have to start reneging on lots of political promises - like huge gasoline price subsidies - that have kept the populace from openly rioting.

It is in our interests as Americans to keep conserving oil and suppressing demand as much as possible in order to take advantage of this.

It won't affect Russia as much - their economy is significantly more diverse - but it sure won't help them, either.

The U.S. is the only country paying Venezuela market price for oil. The rest are getting it at 30% of market in cash with the remainder due over 25 years.

Venezuela could fix most of their problem merely by charging everybody market price for their oil.

The BBC World is right now interviewing that antisemite -- Zbigniew Brzezinski. The question posed to Brzezinski is how an Obama presidency would alter America's foreign policies. Discussing Iran. "Iran's concerns must be taken into account." (Yeah, riiight...that means Iran wants nukes, and what Iran wants, Iran must get -- especially under an Obama presidency.) Now discussing Israel. Must meet with Israel's enemies (Hamas) without pre-conditions. Ok. Time to turn off the television.

re: #192 Cognito

I agree. Nobody here (and in the MSM) really understand what is going on. The Government has done a poor job at explaining why they think the bailout is necessary, what the causes of the crisis were, and how they are going to repair the problem. It's a very complex situation. We all have instincts and opinions about regulation and government intervention but in this case these opinions don't amount to much.

re: #196 taxfreekiller

So, your big badly managed bank gets the Govt. "dole", then you vote against the Senator's who approved it and start a deal to un-elect the local R and or D, how hard would it be for the owner of preferred stock (U.S. Goverment) to cause the bank operations officer to allow the incumbent Senator to view your banking info online from the Senate cloak room with Lt. Kerry and Harry Reid looking on.

like that or worse

Is there any limits on political contribution by the banks or is this going to be like Fannie Mae where the government gives them money and then the banks fund the politicians campaign cofers?

re: #163 Quintus_Arius

Think this through. On behalf of American taxpayers, the gov't is buying preferred shares of major US banks. We are the clients.

These shares could pay handsome dividends. Thinking of all the rat-holes our taxes have been down in the past, like ACORN, Fannie and Freddie, this, to me makes sense and could be a precursor for ways to fund Social Security and Medicare in the future. Again, the gov't is playing capitalism here not socialism.

I hope you're right.

re: #205 wright1

49% yes
49% no

after my yes vote

re: #178 jamgarr

I was actually reading the Milliways chapter of RATEOTU last night.

/where little expense was spared to create the impression that no expense was spared.

Great post! Except that I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Milliways? RATEOTU?

re: #191 looking closely

I don't trust him either, but I trust him FAR more than Tovarisch Obama when it comes to nationalizing things or expanding the role of gov't.

Me too. Who knows Mac could, following the election, have some epiphany and turn into a conservative. Obama would simply reveal himself as the Marxists he is.

What led to the financial crises that Liberals would like to shove under the bus:

re: #209 eschew_obfuscation

The U.S. is the only country paying Venezuela market price for oil. The rest are getting it at 30% of market in cash with the remainder due over 25 years.

Venezuela could fix most of their problem merely by charging everybody market price for their oil.

But, but... how would they be able to "screw the Yanqui Imperialists" that way?

;^)

re: #174 looking closely

If the shares are so great, then why isn't private capital buying them up?

Private capital has been buying BoA preferred since April. The gov't is buying shares of the strongest banks to show equanimity and trust in the system; it will also shore up smaller banks as well which is the real intent.

Hey I was born a bull and optimistic, so sue me already. Cynicism has no value.

re: #205 wright1

That poll has been stuck on 49/49 for weeks.

Cargo Rates are plunging

Bad for shippers. Excellent news for everyone shipping anything.

I got an email from a friend, titled, "Obama and the Flag". It sounds really fishy to me, like an urban legend. Okay, after reading the whole thing, it sounds like total BS, riddled with the usual grammatical errors. Anybody else heard about this one? Here's an excerpt:

"Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, 'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.

'We should consider to reinvent our National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injust ice. My wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons.

Together she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has her views and I have mine'. Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."

re: #104 looking closely

If the bank shares are undervalued, let them be acquired by private capital on the free market.

If they're not publically trading, then the gov't should DOUBLY stay out of this.

We just don't need the Fed butting in here.
This isn't Europe.

Our politicians are trying to make Europe look like a shining bastion of Capitalism.

re: #98 itellu3times

I'm not sure. Soros said it's a good idea, you figure the odds. But, I think, in some cases, it may be good, so I voted yes.

hey it let me vote before I was logged in.

You spawn of Acorn!

re: #193 anotherindyfilmguy

Not only no but "HELL NO!"

Hey Charles, how about a "Hell NO!" option on the next poll?

Or, RON PAUL!

re: #213 FrogMarch

Yes, my understanding is that the government will probably make money on this deal. Remember the axed ACORN clause? That was about giving the profits from this bailout to ACORN. There's a very good chance there will be a profit.

re: #215 Occasional Reader

Great post! Except that I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. Milliways? RATEOTU?

Milliways is the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, in the book of the same name by Douglas Adams (it's part of the Hitchhiker's Guide series). :)

re: #223 FurryOldGuyJeans

Our politicians are trying to make Europe look like a shining bastion of Capitalism.

Our politicians don't know WTF they're doing. They're in waaaay over their heads.

re: #222 Ward Cleaver

Utter crap. Ignore it.

re: #222 Ward Cleaver

Total nonsense.

re: #216 unrealizedviewpoint

Me too. Who knows Mac could, following the election, have some epiphany and turn into a conservative. Obama would simply reveal himself as the Marxist he is.

I think naming Bill Ayers as Education Secretary might do the trick.

Don't think it won't happen, Ayers has been "rehabilitated", remember.

re: #205 wright1

Tied at 49% right now.

re: #222 Ward Cleaver

Garbage - said with a Fwench accent.

re: #222 Ward Cleaver

That's obviously satire (although, as I laugh, some of it rings true...)

re: #229 Cognito

Utter crap. Ignore it.

That was my take, after I actually read the whole thing. Can you believe people could send such crap?

re: #218 Spiny Norman

But, but... how would they be able to "screw the Yanqui Imperialists" that way?

;^)

;~)

Actually, it seems to me that they're doing us a favor.....just not as big a favor as if they gave us a 70% discount (sort of). Flooding the market with cheap oil does two things for us:

1) Reduces the cost of oil in general
2) Put's Hugo's buddies deeply into debt

win-win.....

re: #222 Ward Cleaver

I call bullshit.

re: #210 J.S.

We shouldn't forget that Hiz'b'allah murdered hundreds of Americans, Hamas has murdered Americans, Fatah has murdered Americans, Hamas works with Al-Qaeda, and that all the aforementioned ("Israel's Enemies") are part of the Axis of Islamist Terrorism (ie: America's Enemy), Fatah/Hamas have killed French, Spanish, and other nationalities.

Again, its another issue where the world considered every Jew killed by Islamists to be "Israeli", and thus the Islamist Plan for Worldwide Caliphate is a "Jewish Issue" and not that of the U.S. This falls into the centuries long canard that if you do anything that protects Jews, you are working for the Jews, and thus the Jews should be left alone to be murdered.

I guess our intervention into Serbia was "Caliphatist Controlled", and our intervention to prevent AIDS in Africa is "Africanist Controlled", and our intervention in Darfur (although minimal) is "Africanist/Blackist Controlled" and not really an American issue.

Oh wait, this "its there fault" thing only applies to Jews.

re: #232 neocon hippie

Tied at 49% right now.

The PBS poll has been that way for several days, actually. There's probably been enough votes on it by now that it won't move much in either direction.

re: #227 gop_patriot

Milliways is the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, in the book of the same name by Douglas Adams (it's part of the Hitchhiker's Guide series). :)

Ah. Okay. Read it so long ago that I didn't remember the restaurant name.

Hugo's oil? Let's just say it' really crude and requires a great deal of refining.

Le Yoots vs Vinnie Vega.....

Travolta film victim of violence in French project

Officials say that a John Travolta movie has suspended filming in one of the Paris area's toughest housing projects after 10 cars to be used in the movie were burned.

re: #205 wright1

Since we are discussing polls - maybe Lizards can check out this one:

PBS has an online poll posted asking if Sarah Palin is qualified. Apparently the left wing knew about this

in advance and are flooding the voting with NO votes.

The poll will be reported on PBS and picked up by mainstream media. It can influence undecided voters

in swing states.

Please do two things -- takes 20 seconds.

1) Click on link and vote YES!

Here's the link: [Link: www.pbs.org...]

2) Then send this to every McCain-Palin supporter you know, and urge them to vote and pass it on.

The last thing we need is PBS saying their viewers don't think Sarah Palin is qualified.

This same poll has been popping up her on LGF for a couple of weeks now. And the results are still at 49%. This is either a dead or bogus poll. In any case, can we PLEASE not post this poll again?

re: #235 Ward Cleaver

That was my take, after I actually read the whole thing. Can you believe people could send such crap?

I always check those things on snopes and then send the snopes link back to the sender.

re: #222 Ward Cleaver

Okay, after reading the whole thing, it sounds like total BS

Gosh, ya think?!

re: #158 Sharmuta

Is there a time frame in which the government has to get out of my bank?

When the government decides is all I keep hearing. The more I hear of this atrocity the more I believe it should have not even been put out for discussion and consideration. But realizing where the idea originated (UK) makes it somehow easier for our politicians to force-feed this fiscally indigestible mess on the American people.

re: #222 Ward Cleaver

My b.s. meter just exploded.

re: #226 Killgore Trout

Yes, my understanding is that the government will probably make money on this deal. Remember the axed ACORN clause? That was about giving the profits from this bailout to ACORN. There's a very good chance there will be a profit.

I hope so.
btw - If the Dems take over, will the ACORN clause get added back in?I'm thinking as a "thank you" it will be.

re: #221 SixDegrees

Bad for shippers. Excellent news for everyone shipping anything.

It is WHY cargo rates are plunging that should scare us.

I had trouble doing the poll on the front page - shouldn't there be a choice for "Ask the Zionists" ?

/sarc off

re: #240 Occasional Reader

Ah. Okay. Read it so long ago that I didn't remember the restaurant name.

Yep, I figured you knew and just didn't recognize it at the moment. :)

re: #244 redstateredneck

I always check those things on snopes and then send the snopes link back to the sender.

I use that, and the About.com UL site.

re: #242 Killgore Trout

Le Yoots vs Vinnie Vega.....

Travolta film victim of violence in French project

Sounds like Marcellus Wallace needs to get Medieval on some "yoots".

I think it might turn out to be a good investment for the gov and hopefully the proceeds will be used to pay back the debt - as long as the gov is not holding any controlling stake in any of the banks and are a minority shareholder - I like the concept ... I definitely prefer that they would invest in the free market than trying to bail out the losers and crooks or trying to force the market into making bad business decisions. Again - they SHOULD NOT have any control on management though

The Plumber is coming up on Neal Cavuto in a minute. We all want to find out what he said back to Obama after he was told that he needs to play fair and share his money.

OT: Neil Cavuto is about have the as a guest the plumber who was told by Obama that he had to pay more taxes out of "fairness."

re: #247 x-wing

My b.s. meter just exploded.

Mine melted.

re: #244 redstateredneck

I always check those things on snopes and then send the snopes link back to the sender.

There's really no need to waste snopes' time in this particular case.

re: #228 Ward Cleaver

Our politicians don't know WTF they're doing. They're in waaaay over their heads.

Considering that a large section of our politicians are lawyers, with to my knowledge nary a one having any substantial knowledge of economics, makes me realize that it just ain't Obama that is in over his pay-grade.

This crisis, the causes AND the solutions proposed, just shows there is nothing as permanent as a temporary crisis for politicians.

re: #171 Ruthless

It's not just their fuel-hogging SUV's that are their problem, it's their ballooning pension and benefit obligations that'll sink them. Union demands have destroyed the car manufacturing industry.

re: #256 Beach Lover

The Plumber is coming up on Neal Cavuto in a minute. We all want to find out what he said back to Obama after he was told that he needs to play fair and share his money.

Keep talkin', Barry!