Bank Nationalization

[SpidermanTuba]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

 

[manu1959]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

double standard......it would seem the fed is after the securities and equites market not the banks per se.....goldman sachs is going to come out of this as a very powerful player .....

 

[wimpy77]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

double standard......it would seem the fed is after the securities and equites market not the banks per se.....goldman sachs is going to come out of this as a very powerful player .....

actually some banks at this point are already nationalized.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

It wasn't "patriotism" when George Washington bought into Hamilton's nonsense about a national bank, it was unconstitutional.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

It wasn't "patriotism" when George Washington bought into Hamilton's nonsense about a national bank, it was unconstitutional.

You say it was unconstitutional. I say it wasn't. And there was just the same debate back in 1790. This was before Marbury v Madison, so the decision was ultimately up to Washington.

On a tangent - you'd think since they WERE the Founding Fathers, they would have known what their intent was and there would have been no debate as to the Constitutionality. This just goes to show the very idea of "strict constructionism" is whack - before the ink dried on the paper of the Constitution the very same people who wrote it were debating about what it actually meant, there was no definitive "original meaning" to the Constitution.

 

[DavidS]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

It wasn't "patriotism" when George Washington bought into Hamilton's nonsense about a national bank, it was unconstitutional.

How so? What part of our constitution discusses nationalizing banks being a big no no?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

It wasn't "patriotism" when George Washington bought into Hamilton's nonsense about a national bank, it was unconstitutional.

How so? What part of our constitution discusses nationalizing banks being a big no no?

I think the debate was over whether or not the bank was "necessary and proper" to the explicitly states powers of the Federal government. I dunno though, but there was a debate as to its constitutionality. Unfortunately at that point Marbury v Madison hadn't happened, so it was also unclear as to how issues of constitutionality would be decided.

 

[sealybobo]

It wasn't "patriotism" when George Washington bought into Hamilton's nonsense about a national bank, it was unconstitutional.

How so? What part of our constitution discusses nationalizing banks being a big no no?

I think the debate was over whether or not the bank was "necessary and proper" to the explicitly states powers of the Federal government. I dunno though, but there was a debate as to its constitutionality. Unfortunately at that point Marbury v Madison hadn't happened, so it was also unclear as to how issues of constitutionality would be decided.

The Constitution does not expressly mention federal agencies like the Federal Reserve. Some call federal agencies the "headless fourth branch" of the federal government.

And look what Thomas Jefferson said:

The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

These people left England because of shit like this. It wasn't just for religious freedom. The corporations got too powerful and the poor got poorer so the poor left.

When this happens to us, where will we go?

 

[sealybobo]

It wasn't "patriotism" when George Washington bought into Hamilton's nonsense about a national bank, it was unconstitutional.

How so? What part of our constitution discusses nationalizing banks being a big no no?

I think the debate was over whether or not the bank was "necessary and proper" to the explicitly states powers of the Federal government. I dunno though, but there was a debate as to its constitutionality. Unfortunately at that point Marbury v Madison hadn't happened, so it was also unclear as to how issues of constitutionality would be decided.

The Constitution does not expressly mention federal agencies like the Federal Reserve. Some call federal agencies the "headless fourth branch" of the federal government.

And look what Thomas Jefferson said:

The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

These people left England because of shit like this. It wasn't just for religious freedom. The corporations got too powerful and the poor got poorer so the poor left.

When this happens to us, where will we go?

Here is another Jefferson quote: Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

 

[editec]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

Nice, dude.

 

[manu1959]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

double standard......it would seem the fed is after the securities and equites market not the banks per se.....goldman sachs is going to come out of this as a very powerful player .....

actually some banks at this point are already nationalized.

which banks are wholey owned by the government....as far as i know the government is simply an investor and owns shares.....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

It wasn't "patriotism" when George Washington bought into Hamilton's nonsense about a national bank, it was unconstitutional.

You say it was unconstitutional. I say it wasn't. And there was just the same debate back in 1790. This was before Marbury v Madison, so the decision was ultimately up to Washington.

On a tangent - you'd think since they WERE the Founding Fathers, they would have known what their intent was and there would have been no debate as to the Constitutionality. This just goes to show the very idea of "strict constructionism" is whack - before the ink dried on the paper of the Constitution the very same people who wrote it were debating about what it actually meant, there was no definitive "original meaning" to the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the Constitutionality of the national bank and therefore got rid of it during his term as President, and Andrew Jackson agreed with that sentiment as well when he got rid of the second Bank of the United States.

As to the constitutionality, one need only read the Constitution and find no mention of a national bank to see that it is unconstitutional.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

It wasn't "patriotism" when George Washington bought into Hamilton's nonsense about a national bank, it was unconstitutional.

How so? What part of our constitution discusses nationalizing banks being a big no no?

The Constitution lists the powers of the federal government, and anything not specifically mentioned is not a legitimate power of the federal government. Since the power to create a national bank is not mentioned then it is unconstitutional to create one.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

I don't see anything particularly attributable to The Prophet in this. Perhaps some on the left would like to own the banks. Dumb idea and any adult in the Congress would see that.

My take is, liquidate those in trouble, reorganize them or merge them into one or more things and sell whatever they end up with back to the private sector.

See my post today on what I believe is one of the central truths underneath all of this. Separately, I am not sure right now that Treasury knows what it is doing.

 

[sealybobo]

It wasn't "patriotism" when George Washington bought into Hamilton's nonsense about a national bank, it was unconstitutional.

How so? What part of our constitution discusses nationalizing banks being a big no no?

The Constitution lists the powers of the federal government, and anything not specifically mentioned is not a legitimate power of the federal government. Since the power to create a national bank is not mentioned then it is unconstitutional to create one.

But the governments duty is to protect the citizens. If the Fed is harming the citizens, then it is the governments duty to remedy this problem.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

How so? What part of our constitution discusses nationalizing banks being a big no no?

I think the debate was over whether or not the bank was "necessary and proper" to the explicitly states powers of the Federal government. I dunno though, but there was a debate as to its constitutionality. Unfortunately at that point Marbury v Madison hadn't happened, so it was also unclear as to how issues of constitutionality would be decided.

The Constitution does not expressly mention federal agencies like the Federal Reserve. Some call federal agencies the "headless fourth branch" of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve isn't a federal agency.

 

[editec]

Why is it socialism for Obama to want to partially nationalize some banks, and patriotism when George Washington signed a bill to charter the 1st National Bank and have the U.S. government buy 20% of the stock?

I cannot speak for those who think Obama is a socialist, but I'll take a guess anyway.

Because George Washington was a White Slave-owning Southern American Aristo, and Obama isn't?

Here's another guess...because people don't understand their American history or economics as well as they think they do.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think the debate was over whether or not the bank was "necessary and proper" to the explicitly states powers of the Federal government. I dunno though, but there was a debate as to its constitutionality. Unfortunately at that point Marbury v Madison hadn't happened, so it was also unclear as to how issues of constitutionality would be decided.

The Constitution does not expressly mention federal agencies like the Federal Reserve. Some call federal agencies the "headless fourth branch" of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve isn't a federal agency.

How many non-federal agencies do you know of that have their chairman appointed by the President, were created by the federal government, and are given a monopoly over the creation of money?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The Constitution does not expressly mention federal agencies like the Federal Reserve. Some call federal agencies the "headless fourth branch" of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve isn't a federal agency.

How many non-federal agencies do you know of that have their chairman appointed by the President, were created by the federal government, and are given a monopoly over the creation of money?

One.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Federal Reserve isn't a federal agency.

How many non-federal agencies do you know of that have their chairman appointed by the President, were created by the federal government, and are given a monopoly over the creation of money?

One.

After I posted that I had a feeling that would be the response.

At any rate, all that pretty much proves that the Federal Reserve is a federal agency. Though it really doesn't matter, it needs to be done away with regardless.