I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Isn't that called communism??
Should this be true it would generate incredible anger within the body politic. Imagine being told there are companies that want to pay back the loans with interest and it amounts to BILLIONS of dollars???
The only, weak, explaination that might fly is the original, weak explaination from Paulson. That everyone gets money so nobody is singled out as a problem bank and causing a run. This fig leaf will last only as long as it takes to complete the "stress tests". Once those are done then there is no reason to not accept money back. Bad banks will be identified.
Nonetheless this still means it is being run under the governments rules.
Lesson to all businesses, do not accept government money, you and everyone else is better off to go bankrupt.
Justthinkin;
It's closer to fascism. Communism preaches state ownership of business. Fascism is privately owned business run to the dictate of the state.
Its easier to steal the money when you own the bank.
Worse...
Dick Morris: Obama’s G-20 Giveaways ‘Effectively Repealed’ Declaration of Independence — Internationalizing (Not Nationalizing) Companies Essential to the System
http://www.butasforme.com/2009/04/05/dick-morris-obamas-g-20-giveaways-effectively-repealed-declaration-of-independence/
One of my seriously leftist inclined acquaintances, advocating for socialism, told me that he was not a fascist for wanting only his political beliefs to be discussed.
He emphatically told me that Mussolini defined fascism as the the merger of business and state.
His head then popped off when I told him it was good that we could agree that Obama was a fascist.
Then he queened out and took me off his friend list on Facebook.
bob c - it's debatable. I'd say the Obama agenda is more socialist than fascist; he's really not leaving corporations within the control of the private realm.
As he told the bank CEOs, 'My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks'. Hardly a sign of acknowledging private control but instead, a clear indication of govt control. Particularly interesting when it was Obama himself, and his administrators, who led and created the lynch mob hysteria against the banks.
And, his firing of the head of GM, again, is a sign of govt control over private industry.
Isn't there a fable about a horse, a wolf and a man? The horse is in danger of being eaten by the wolf and asks the man for help. The man tells the horse that in order to defeat the wolf the man must ride the horse. Once the man is seated on the horse the wolf is defeated but when the horse asks the man to dismount the man digs in the spurs and says, "Giddy up Dobbin".
Bill Moyers sits down with William K. Black, the former senior regulator who cracked down on banks during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. Black offers his analysis of what went wrong and his critique of the bailout
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html
Fox News reports that Geithner has told banks and corporations that IF they receive federal funds, THEN, this acceptance comes with the 'right of government' to intervene in management selection.
That's not fascism; that's socialism.
By the way, Fox News also reported that GM is musing about bankruptcy - something it should have been allowed to do before now.
The Americans have finally gotten their Peeair Elliot Turdeau in the form of the empty suit community organizer Barack. Get ready for Canadian style taxation my American cousins, Hollywood ala Operahaha and Geffen have hoodwinked you good, and it is only beginning!
I continue to hear people refer to the Obama Administration as being socialist for wanting to direct, control and regulate business. To do so is not socialism; it's fascism.
Jonah Goldberg's book "liberal Fascism" describes it well, particularly Chapter 8, "Liberal Fascist Economics". I think the Obamabots read that chapter as a manifesto.
ET;
Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't "not leaving corporations within the control of the private realm" a characteristic that both socialism and fascism share?
I have this feeling that we are all living in a version of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. ONly this is not fiction.
No surprise as the end game is discrediting, then, dismantling capitalism.
There is no tactical advantage for team Obama/Pelosi/Reid if corporate America can right itself.
Fomenting populist wrath over the lame AIG bonuses, pocket change, and, hey, it had nothing to do with the clowns that took the company down, was a hint as to where this is going.
They don't want the money paid back.
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson
Obama can't run the US competantly how the hell is he going to run private industry. Here's a man who was paid to organize community events on the government's dime, he and his team are hopeless fools. God Bless America, indeed they'll need devine intervention if Obama continues on his path whilst mirroring political policies from Cuba and China and Russia.
The WSJ article would be more compelling if the bank in question were identified. Wanting to "protect the bank from retaliation" doesn't quite ring true to me. If the bank has indeed been threatened with adverse consequences if it persists in trying to return the money, I think it has everything to gain by bringing the matter out in the open. The political mood of the country, though frequently moronic, would side with the bank.
Another step for global control at the expense of sovereignty along with individual rights. In effect Obama has created in concert or by force the world bankers to become an actual global economy. It will be known as the FSB. Soon we will here of a world dollar because we live in a "Global economy". This will be needed to quell the worldwide depression. Forestall riots, for nuclear security. Or so we will be told. Meanwhile the whole economy has now become under political domination. Who cares if you call it socialist or fascist. It totalitarian & will end in holes full of rotting corpses. The futures are in bulldozers now. That & tolerance in the guise of terror.
JMO
Would love to see Vit or ET or one of the other whiz kids put together an understandable comparison between American and Canadian tax rates. Somehow I think people might be very surprised at how little the difference is.
Which bank? No mystery there. It's the Bank of America.
One hopes the US people will grow so weary of state intervention and control that they will elect a Reaganite.
I mean, holy smokes, we're only approximately five months into a FOUR YEAR administration...
mark:
Are you forgetting mid-term elections?
Put a Republican -controlled Congress in and that will check and balance an out-of-control administration (Presidency).
Only 18 months to go.
Condition No. 5 in the Communist manifesto:
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Italy - The Charter of Labor Apr 21 , 1927
VII - The Corporate State considers private enterprise in the domain of production to be the most efficient method and the most advantageous to the interests of the nation. Private enterprise in production, being an activity of national interest, the entrepeeneur is responsible to the State for his organization. A reciprocity of rights and duties follows from the collaboration of the forces of production. The wage-earner, artisan, employee or labourer is an active collaborator in the economic enterprise, the direction of which belongs to the employer who also carries the responsibilty.
blah blah blah
IX - The State intervenes in economic production only when private enterprise fails or is insufficient or when the political interests of the State are involved. Such intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management.'
This was not a legislative act, but was approved and promulgated by the Fascist Grand Council, Apr 21, 1927. It is considered 'organic law' of the regime.
And what's old is new again!
Tom Paine:
There is indeed a lot of similarity between the WSJ article and Ken Lewis' flip-flop regarding early payback. Still, the bank alluded to in the article took less than one billion in TARP money, and the bank CEO supposedly offered to write a check now, not latter in 2009. That doesn't sound quite like Ken Lewis and BOA, at least not as I understand it. Is the WSJ composing allegories in liew of reportage? I would expect that of the NY Times, but not the WSJ.
That's "in lieu", not "in liew". By now, after dozens of such errors, you would think I would get a spell-checker.
And "later", not "latter". Any others?
ET,
Thats actually capitalism, in the sense that shareholders and other capital providers get to choose boards and select senior officers. And the government loans are the senior debt.
This is what happend when you take bailout money. Lets go down the opposite path for a second. The government saves a company with taxpayer funds and then lets management carry on as before, that is equally a problem.
Government now has a responsibility as an owner or senior debt holder, which of course begs the question of whether it should have in the first place. Nonetheless it is now within its rights to act as it is doing, whether it is exerting pressure for a right or wrong decision is the question.
If an alien hedge fund manager landed with enourmous wealth and took did what the US government has done not one person would question their right change management. My issue with the government is what is the plan and what is the plan to stop being an owner.....now that they are an owner.
Complaining that they are firing CEO's is missing the point, the barn door is flapping and the horse is having a grand old time running with the wind.
Now we on the right are creating conspiracy theories to rival those on the left during the Bush years. Everybody, chill a bit and be concerned about the important things. Might I suggest that one of these is the conflict of interest when one of Obama's top economic advisers reaps millions from hedge funds and investment banks. This is not conspiracy theory matter. It is conflict of interest at the highest degree. Focus on what is important and forget about the sophomoric conspiracies.
Was watching one of the shows on Fox and they were talking about how these banks didn't want to accept the money and in essence hand over their autonomy to the government. Only problem was that these banks were "threatened" by endless "audits" amounting to mountains of money, time and energy to prove themselves honest. Couple this with the public's knowledge of an "audit" which would be akin to yelling Fire! and the ramifications/fear would decimate some of these smaller banks. Solution - accept TARP money and bow to the master. This is getting scary. To add insult when questioned about the tripling of the national debt, some Obamaton on Hannity basically said - so what, the ends justify the means! These people don't care as long as their agenda gets rammed down our throats. The inmates are running the asylum.
Government now has a responsibility as an owner or senior debt holder, which of course begs the question...
Posted by: Stephen at April 5, 2009 9:26 PM
O/T and threadjack, with my apologies.
Stephen, I don't mean to come across as snarky or a grammar nazi, it's just a personal pet peeve of mine (as a former student of philosophy and logic back in the day...).
You should have used the phrase "raises the question." To use the phrase "beg the question" is to reference a specific fallacy in philosophy and logic, more commonly known in the vernacular as a circular argument.
www dot begthequestion dot info
The more you know ...
;)
its quotes like this that make me think men like Jefferson were such a cut above the hoipoloi that they must have thought at times they should take over , but he resisted the forces that drive the dems and lieberals to this very day.the American revolution was as much a revolution in thought as a revolution of arms.
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson
Iggy and the libs take note.
FDIC goes after Mass. bank for not having enough bad loans.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509584,00.html
Does anyone now understand why Secretary Paulson gave the money without the tons of conditions being leveraged upon these institutions today?
He knew where this was heading and did what he had to stabilize the system (not that I even agree with that), what he did not quite get was the populist rage that this Administration would incite to allow some really illegal changes to be made to force Banks to take or convert TARP money into common equity positions.
You see the original money is secured by preferred equity and traded voting rights(the control everyone is jabbering about in congress) for a very healthy dividend. None of the TARP money was secured by voting rights, on purpose! The Government owns ZERO controlling equity in most of the Banks that received TARP money.
There are only four entities where the Government "bailout money" actually is secured by voting shares that would allow Congress to exercise "ownership". They are AIG, Freddie and Fannie, and Citi Group. Citi was a result of the Stress test that forced them to convert preferred non-voting stock into controlling common stock, this is the real goal of the Stress Tests in case you missed that fact they are not pass/fail according to Treasury.
The problem is certain banks are not going to have to do this conversion, this annoys the Administration to no end. They need all banks to convert the preferred to controlling stakes or they cannot take control of the corporation.
So in order to have a Plan B they need the systemic risk regulator authority to seize any company that poses systemic risk regardless of viability and health. You see they can through a regulatory process make a bank insolvent overnight by changes capital ratios, asset valuations and requirements, forcing them to fold or take TARP funds in the form of controlling interest.
None of the Federal Reserve programs are secured by any ownership stakes and are secured by assets, not stock.
So the take away is FEAR the System Risk Regulator and the results of the Stress Tests, just mark my words and watch what happens.
Just consider this: The Investment banks all now fall under the domain of the FDIC as they are all operating as a regulated Commercial Banks, so why is a Systemic Risk Regulator is such a priority when the FDIC has all the Authority it needs?
re: Condition No. 5 in the Communist manifesto: Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Technically this was done in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve.
And don't forget these, long since accomplished:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
6. Centralisation of means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State ...
10. Free education for all children in public schools ...
[quote]Might I suggest that one of these is the conflict of interest when one of Obama's top economic advisers reaps millions from hedge funds and investment banks.[/quote]Bsneath
Right! What would you do if all your Speculator friends had lost thier money & the Hedge? Yes! bail out the Hedge fund so the friends can collect & pay the debt. G. Soros made money 2008
We just follow the Money!
Colin,
A good command of the English language is the sign of a communicator... nothing more.
Kate posted the clip last week of two, so called, educated great communicators (Hitchcock & Ruskie) trying to talk to a common man. They failed in that very simple task., what good is perfect English if you have nothing to say, or you can't make everyone understand what you say!
more appositely it could have been 'in loo."
Colin,
You learn something new everyday. "Beg or begs the question is one of those phrases that has a common meaning....but thanks for pointing out a proper or correct usage. I take in the spirit it was offered.
"Make the rich pay..."
Posted by: ulianov at April 6, 2009 3:11 AM
It all sounds good on paper until the leftoids realize that once the rich get tired of paying they will get the h*ll out of dodge and take their money with them. Then who is left paying?
Remember, the rich can always find a way to keep their monies, it's the poor middle class shmuck that can't afford accountants and lawyers that will pay.
Remember when the Left was angry at Bush for "tearing up the constitution"?
Well, at least to tear it up, you have to acknowledge that it exists.
Note that Tim "Safecracker" Geithner was on the talk show circuit this weekend, warning that the Feds would reserve the right to replace CEO's at organizations that took Fed money. Sic semper tyrannis, anyone?
BTW, Google Chrome, which is something like six times as fast as IE 7, spellchecks your comments as you type them.
Uli Can't make the rich pay. The rich make the rules under any system even communism. The difference is under our system no-one starves.
"spellchecks your comments as you type them."
So does Firefox, which underlines "spellchecks". :)
It also uses American English so that those of us who use British spellings get a lot of underlines.
Uli.. Obama is rich himself.. why would he want the rich to pay?
An interesting circularity is forming. The owner of the bank also controls the bank regulators. Nothing bad could happen there, right?
Who watches the watchers, ulianov?
Make the rich pay?
By giving them taxpayers' money, then blaming them for fulfilling contracts which were approved by those giving money.
Some are saying this is the end of capitalism.
In a true capitalist system, AIG bonuses would never have been paid.
Now, banks that want to pay back TARP money that was gained from future generations are not being allowed to pay back the money to today's taxpayer.
And, banks that are successful, with no defaults are being looked at with suspicion, accused of not following guidelines in the Community Redevelopment act (this article was on drudge).
The tactics of these despicable control freaks are now becoming clearer and clearer.
And, the Obamatons will become louder and louder.
Look for signs of breakdown of civility, such as the Obamatons calling anybody who's against them ‘racist.'
It's happening. All people who value their freedom need to stand up to this emerging tyranny against the individual.
Phanton:
All anybody needs to know about your question is the case of Lake Baikal in the Soviet Union.
Since the role normally accorded to the state ie a referee and rule-setter, nobody could have blown the whistle on how the lake was destroyed by pollution.
One of the ‘S's' in USSR was Soyuz, which is the Russian world for union ... as in labour unions.
If you love the job labour unions did in the USSR, wait until you see what they have planned for Obama's USSA.
"Now we on the right are creating conspiracy theories to rival those on the left during the Bush years."
You're doing more than rivaling you're lightyears ahead.