lindsey graham on nationalizing the banks

[wimpy77]

"This Week with George Stephanopolous" today:

"Yes, this idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable, but I think we have gotten so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community throughout the world that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes, but, to me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. And I'm very much afraid that any program to salvage the bank is going to require the government. ..."

Stephanopolous interrupted to ask what he would do now, and Graham replied: "I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks."

Later Chuck Schumer, tacking to Graham's right, cautioned:

"Let me just say this. George Bush, a very conservative president, had more government intervention in the financial system than any president in history. But I would not be for nationalizing. I think government's not good at making these decisions as to who gets loans and how this happens."

 

[Care4all]

I'm not certain how i feel about this....i guess i would need more info on exactly how it would all work?

 

[wimpy77]

i think they should do everything possible to avoid it first.

 

[Toro]

I watched him say it and had to double check that it was Graham.

I would rather the banks not be nationalized unless we have to.

Here is a reason why nationalization should at least be an option.

The projected losses of the banks are larger than the equity value, i.e. they are worthless now.

EconomPic: $500 Billion Sinkhole

I'm not sure if the loss projections are correct - they look overstated to me. However, if this is accurate, we could save a lot of pain and nationalize now and begin the healing process.

 

[xsited1]

...
Later Chuck Schumer, tacking to Graham's right, cautioned:

"Let me just say this. George Bush, a very conservative president, had more government intervention in the financial system than any president in history.
...

 

[eots]

the government will own the banks very soon...remember you heard it here first so I can say I told you so...welcome to the.... new world order

 

[manu1959]

the government will own the banks very soon...remember you heard it here first so I can say I told you so...welcome to the.... new world order

most of the rest of the world is already nationalized ..... and the propeller beany crowd think the fed bank and world bank already run the government.... so isn't this just admitting what we have all been doing all along.......

 

[eots]

yes the new world order is putting their elite socialist agenda right out front..putting it in full gear..and going for it ... A one world banking and monetary system under U.N control

 

[Toro]

BTW, on the same program, Maxine Waters said we shouldn't nationalize the banks.

What an upside down world we live in.

 

[manu1959]

yes the new world order is putting their elite socialist agenda right out front..putting it in full gear..and going for it ... A one world banking and monetary system under U.N control

un control.......dudes in bright blue fighting a war......yea that is a crowd i want in control.....

 

[jillian]

the government will own the banks very soon...remember you heard it here first so I can say I told you so...welcome to the.... new world order

most of the rest of the world is already nationalized ..... and the propeller beany crowd think the fed bank and world bank already run the government.... so isn't this just admitting what we have all been doing all along.......

it also makes financial sense. if you pay for something, you should derive the benefits from it.

 

[wimpy77]

I watched him say it and had to double check that it was Graham.

I would rather the banks not be nationalized unless we have to.

Here is a reason why nationalization should at least be an option.

The projected losses of the banks are larger than the equity value, i.e. they are worthless now.

EconomPic: $500 Billion Sinkhole

I'm not sure if the loss projections are correct - they look overstated to me. However, if this is accurate, we could save a lot of pain and nationalize now and begin the healing process.

actually toro they don't know how much bad assests the banks have that's why i think geithner wants to "stress test" the banks before deciding what to do.

 

[Toro]

actually toro they don't know how much bad assests the banks have that's why i think geithner wants to "stress test" the banks before deciding what to do.

I know, they are projections based on the analysis by an independent firm. However, it should not take too long to come to a conclusion. If the government does come to the same conclusion, then nationalization may be the best option.

 

[Charles_Main]

"Let me just say this. George Bush, a very conservative president, had more government intervention in the financial system than any president in history. But I would not be for nationalizing. I think government's not good at making these decisions as to who gets loans and how this happens."

Listen to this statement. It makes no sense at all. If Bush was actually a very conservative president. He would not have done many of the things he did. About the Only things Bush was remotely conservative on were Defense, and religious issues like Abortion and Gay issues ect.

When it came to spending money, and social programs like Medicaid part B. Bush was full on liberal.

This is nothing more than the Left attempting to pin our problems on Conservative Ideas, when it was the Nonconservative things Bush and the Republicans did that have hurt us the most.

 

[manu1959]

the government will own the banks very soon...remember you heard it here first so I can say I told you so...welcome to the.... new world order

most of the rest of the world is already nationalized ..... and the propeller beany crowd think the fed bank and world bank already run the government.... so isn't this just admitting what we have all been doing all along.......

it also makes financial sense. if you pay for something, you should derive the benefits from it.

you make a good case against taxes....not sure i can refute it......

 

[mash107]

"Let me just say this. George Bush, a very conservative president, had more government intervention in the financial system than any president in history. But I would not be for nationalizing. I think government's not good at making these decisions as to who gets loans and how this happens."

Listen to this statement. It makes no sense at all. If Bush was actually a very conservative president. He would not have done many of the things he did. About the Only things Bush was remotely conservative on were Defense, and religious issues like Abortion and Gay issues ect.

When it came to spending money, and social programs like Medicaid part B. Bush was full on liberal.

This is nothing more than the Left attempting to pin our problems on Conservative Ideas, when it was the Nonconservative things Bush and the Republicans did that have hurt us the most.

True, one might contend though, that Republicans, once, were only in favor of a strong defense that weren't sent abroad to nation build. I remember Clinton being questioned for his foreign interventionist policies with Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and Iraq. These latest batch of Republicans who actually supported the invasion of Iraq are hypocritical.

So Bush, on all counts, expanded the size, power and scope of government. Conservatism is the philosophy that opposes that.

 

[sealybobo]

"This Week with George Stephanopolous" today:

"Yes, this idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable, but I think we have gotten so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community throughout the world that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes, but, to me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. And I'm very much afraid that any program to salvage the bank is going to require the government. ..."

Stephanopolous interrupted to ask what he would do now, and Graham replied: "I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks."

Later Chuck Schumer, tacking to Graham's right, cautioned:

"Let me just say this. George Bush, a very conservative president, had more government intervention in the financial system than any president in history. But I would not be for nationalizing. I think government's not good at making these decisions as to who gets loans and how this happens."

Finally they are talking about the root of our problem. Yes they need to take back control of the banks and Federal Reserve.

Right now, the bankers have too much control/power in our country.

And why not make some profit on the good loans if we are taking the bad ones for the bankers?

 

[Hum Dinger]

"...If Bush was actually a very conservative president. He would not have done many of the things he did...

When it came to spending money, and social programs like Medicaid part B. Bush was full on liberal.

This is nothing more than the Left attempting to pin our problems on Conservative Ideas, when it was the Nonconservative things Bush and the Republicans did that have hurt us the most.

As I stated (to my Bother-in-law) a months ago, I as a 'liberal' wish that George Bush's failure was due to a failure of the 'Conservative' ideology. It was not. Though I wouldn't call Bush a 'liberal' by any means, he was a false conservative.

This, I guess, is why I, and I'm sure many 'Liberals' object to the 'conservative' ideology. To us the entire 'Conservative' ideology is just a bunch of con men, pretending to believe in all these great ideas, but keeping the door open to the worst type of thievery, fraud and inhumanity possible.

While touting the Conservative ideology, the Republicans have been a party of the wealthy and for the wealthy, with special consideration for their immediate buddies. They abused the power of government in every way they possibly could. They have no 'ideology', no principles, just a philosophy of greed and opportunism.

How could the 'Conservative' Americans have invested so much in China? China is STILL a COMMUNIST country! Chinese workers are subsidized by their governement. Yet, void of any principles, guided by greed and opportunism, they invested - destroying the American manufacturing base.

Why do we now have a credit crunch? Because while touting 'Supply side' theory, the business people forgot about the cornerstone of supply side: Tickle down. They froze the salaries of the majority of the workers, stopped giving bonuses, and cut back on benefits. The workers have run up a horrendous amount of debt maintianing their standard of living, while watching any chance of accumulating wealth disappear. NO TRICKLE DOWN EVER HAPPENED. If it did we probably wouldn't be in this economic crisis.

Why is it that these SUPER TALENTED BANKING EXECUTIVES WHO APPARENTLY DESERVED TENS OF MILLIONS IN BONUSES, didn't know their ass from their elbow about quality investments vs. ponzi scams. (And yes the credit default swaps and sub-prime mortgages were A SCAM). Instead of Banking executives, they were nothing but a bunch of SCAM artists - unfortunately for them, the scam backfired, making them not only scam artist, but REALLY SHITTY SCAM ARTIST.

It is not just Bush who betrayed the 'conservative' ideology, it's the entire American 'conservative' culture that has betrayed it!

I guess that that is why I'm a 'Liberal', I fundamentally believe in the same things that TRUE conservatives believe in, but I have enough brains (and am honest enough) to know that you cannot trust people. Therefore we need a moderately controlled economy, with a government acting as a watch dog.

 

[BenjaminMSU]

They could temporarily nationalize the banks, and then sell them off once to private investors after the mess has been cleared....at least i THINK the could.....like they once did in Sweden.

 

[jillian]

you make a good case against taxes....not sure i can refute it......

lol.. cause we both know *that* was my point, eh?

I just figured it's better to make a profit on them than to line the pockets of execs who ran the things into the ground in the first place.