Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You read these stories and start thinking about Obama and company wearing pin stripe suits and looking like gangsters. Oh wait, they're from Chicago so they are gangsters.
You weren't worried about it when reagan controlled union wages. You're still blaming unions for 30yrs when the court was fixed against them. That's capitalism, huh???
It's an opinion piece, not news. I nominate rankin for 2012 to represent the right. Go ahead and fix the planet.
Thanks but I'm actually an independent and very moderate. I do call it as I see it and Obama's socialist agenda is down right scary.
After I read it, I see were he/she is trying to lead me, not working. I simply don't believe the media, or they are purposely on the wrong track.
Some of that sounds true, Look, through the banking industry and Federal Reserve the Banksters took the power long ago from the people. We have our little elections, the media tells us who to pick from and the ones they don't want fade away (Ron Paul example) our pres has little power and congress cowers to the commands handed them.
If you control the banks, the media, and a country from the back door with a constitution such as ours, How do you smash it. First you put the money in limbo-done, give huge bailouts and turn everything upside down-done. Redirect the public's outrage at AIG executives-done The grand finale is coming-the U.S. gov will absorb the banks and come as one, if a one world central bank is offered, do you see where I'm going with this? And a one world gov, the constitution will go away and we all might as well be dead if we allow this. Hitler has nothing on what these monsters are up too.
Bush forced the bank in question to take the money. Obama allegedly doesn't want it back. There are two stories here. The first, why would the Bush admin force taxpayer money to a bank that didn't want it? The second, why won't the government take it back with interest? I would like more info before I pass judgment based on political beliefs, but neither story makes much sense.
There is a fundamental difference in the two (and for the record, I also opposed Bushs bail out)
Bush LOANED banks money in which the banks could use to help tie them over until it could be paid back.
Obama turned this loan into "stock", giving the government control over the banks as a major stockholder.. (including AIG). This is why Citibank stock tanked down to less than $1.00, the government was diluting the value per share by converting the loan into equity. Bernackis reponse when questioned by Congress, something to the affect of "i'm not sure if it will dilute equity for the stockholders" when anyone with half a brain knows that if you take a company and give away 80% of it to someone else, your left with 20% rather than 100%, meaning your diluted.
Government control over private enterprises is illegal, was ruled so by the US Supreme court when Truman tried to control the steel industry.
Bush forced the bank in question to take the money. Obama allegedly doesn't want it back. There are two stories here. The first, why would the Bush admin force taxpayer money to a bank that didn't want it? The second, why won't the government take it back with interest? I would like more info before I pass judgment based on political beliefs, but neither story makes much sense.
Bush forced all major banks to take the money so as not to stigmatize any one bank. Obama will not accept repayment because he claims the banks are still too fragile which is pure politics.
It looks like many of the banks are clsoe to having the required private capital to pay back the loans. The administrion keeps stalling on things like teh streee test etc but its getting close especailly wyhen he needs them to co-opeertate with teh aseets plan. Same goes for hedge funds because bascially the governmentt hasn't a clue or the people to get it done.
Obama is forcing banks to take bailout money even if they don't need it. They are being threatened with public audits if they refuse. Obama is a snake, I don't like him one bit. But the worst part is Obama supporters don't care what he does they are so blinded by his 'star quality' he can do anything and they wouldn't criticize him. He's leading a herd of cabbages.
I wish Mitt Romney was President, at least he knows about business. Unlike Obama who has no clue.
Government control over private enterprises is illegal, was ruled so by the US Supreme court when Truman tried to control the steel industry.
Who complained in that one?
Who do you think will be the first entity to take the intrusion of government into private business/state government all the way to the Supreme Court? I've been thinking if you take the money, you have no leg to stand on in court...sort of like taking money from a gangster and now you are whining that there are gangsters running your store. Imagine that!
If everyone has their hand out for Presidential largesse, I don't see how they have a case. Would that be right?
On the other hand, I don't know if you are not the injured party, if you even have the right to take a case against the government all the way to the Supreme Court on the issue, alone. Can someone tell me?
I wonder when the run on the banks will happen if obama threatens to do this.
That's easy to fix...
BANK HOLIDAY!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
