Here we come, Lenin!

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

So, yesterday, Obama I believe passed resolution to nationalize the banks.

Didn't some people (who have ceased to exist) try that once? I believe they were called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...

Obama has done in a month what it took Bush to do in eight years, and with two bills, has spent one and a half trillion dollars.

Is it me, or is this change not so good?

[Lee Ragan]

Where did you get this information that the banks had been nationalized? From what I've seen it has just been talked about and now the White House is saying they are not going to do it.
I believe we are headed down the path of socialism allright, but let's get the facts straight before we start hollering that the sky is falling.
Just my 2 cents worth.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Hm... I misread the article. So, it hasn't been passed, but, it is still on the books.

Why would the Government take over the banks and the insurance companies, and attempt to save them? Aren't they the ones who got us in this mess anyway?

[03_SHOOTER]

The only reason that they're not "officially" nationalizing the banks is because they know that if they do, we WILL rebel against them. The fact is that all of the banks and financial institutions that take the bail-out money from this latest abortion are de facto going to be under federal control which makes the verbiage used moot, they WILL be nationalized, and the government WILL totally control our monetary system.

It's the same situation that the States are in if they take the money, which is why Jindal, Barber, Palin, and other Governors are threatening not to take some or any of it, because they know that if they do they will have to change their laws to follow federal guidelines for any of the programs the money is targeted at, even after the money runs out, and that will be the last gasp of States Rights (as if the 14th and 17th Amendments hadn't already done enough to destroy that concept).

People can equivocate about it all they want to, but the fact is that the United States is already well on the road to Empire, and like Rome, once that happens the end is in sight. Is it too late to stop it? I don't know, and I certainly hope not, but the fact is that it really all depends on what happens over the next 4 years with the illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant in the White House and the "wipe their butts with the Constitution" Dim-O-Craps controlling Congress.

[Billyd]

Obama has done in a month what it took Bush to do in eight years, and with two bills, has spent one and a half trillion dollars.


You might also want to do some research on the Community Revitalization Act of 1977. In a nutshell, the feds told the banks to lower standards so that more people could get home loans. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were formed to "guarantee" those loans. In the 1990's, the Clinton Administration expanded that program.

During the Bush years, the likes of Rangel, Dodd, Frank prevented regulators for investigating Fannie and Freddie and their practices.

Now, as to the "Stimulus packages," they are and were bad for this country. Bush, et al were wrong and the current crop of misrepresentatives and president are wrong. When the Congressional Budget Office says that this will end if you do nothing, then you really should do nothing. This is nothing more than a power grab and hang on as it will most certainly be a bumpy ride.

[03_SHOOTER]

Thanks for reminding me of something BillyD. A few weeks ago I undertook to research exactly how we managed to stray so far from the mandates laid out in the Constitution which led to the current financial problem. It took quite a bit of digging and research to get as complete a picture as I was able to, in order to help people see the progression of governmental intrusion into those areas that are NOT provided for in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, that got us to where we are today.

Since it is such a lengthy listing, I've posted it HERE (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?p=12129&posted=1#post12129) for anyone who is interested.

[ingbda01]

There are two main alternatives to the current plan:
1 Let corporations that did stupid things fail.
2 Give money out with even fewer standards, controls and guarantees about how its going to be used.

The advantage of option one is it lets the free market work as designed. The disadvantage is that when such massive corporations fail, everybody suffers, especially ordinary folks who had nothing to do with the terrible lending policies pushed by the boardroom. Keep in mind that capitalism works only when a multitude of small companies compete with one and other. Thus when one fails, its not a big deal, and the plurality keeps competition stiff, and creates an environment filled with innovation, as each company is looking for an 'edge' to stay ahead. Today's massive corporations don't work in this buisness model. Because we allowed businesses to get huge without regulating them in moderate, reasonable ways (like financial investigations which were mentioned earlier), things are getting really bad for just about everybody really fast. And I do agree that this is a power grab, the people benefiting from this are smart and well connected. Their careers are made by exploiting opportunities. This one comes at our expense.
Regulation exists to ensure fair market conditions, and to make sure that large businesses aren't fleecing consumers. I believe regulation is necessary, because the rewards for cheating can be huge. As far as giving money out without regulating its use, that would be completely foolish. Whenever any financial institution gives out a substantial amount of cash, they impose standards on its use. I couldn't go down to the bank and get $50,000 for whatever I feel like. I have to present to the loan officer a plan for what I want to use it for, and I must also present collateral. When the World Bank, IMF, or their partner institutions give out loans (massive ones) to foreign countries, they impose strict standards on how it must be spent. They set austerity requirements which often demand changes in domestic law (specifically those related to foreign investment, capital gains taxes, pension and unemployment programs) before they will give the loan. The standards imposed on bailed out corporations aren't nearly as stringent as those banks impose on individuals, or that the world bank imposes on private corporations.
Officially, we have not nationalized the banks, we gave them money with little oversight, and almost no guarantees about how it will be used, save for a salary cap on executive bonuses. The government should impose standards to ensure that our money is being used productively, and in a way that benefits Americans. As for the block grants given to states, that's a standard method to get money into the economy. When states get money, they begin work on projects. One near me is a new highway bypass that will cut transit time between Carson City and Reno. It puts people to work doing things that need to get done, and I have no problem with it. As for its provisions for money for the unemployed, it should keep people who lost their jobs, usually through no fault of their own, from falling into the cycle of poverty. In my book, that isn't such a bad thing.

[TruBlu]

Tonight at 9 PM EST PBHO will address a joint Congressional session, this topic will surly arise seeing as though PBHO hasn't adopted or rejected the idea of bank nationalization publicly. I strongly encourage everyone to tune in if your TV isn't already tuned into C-Span, C-Span 2, FOX, CNN, and the like.