"In a gloomy segment about the financial sector on ABC'S This Week, two self-avowed fiscal conservatives said that the U.S. Government should at least consider nationalizing the country's banking system as a means of moving beyond the current lending crisis.

"This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "But I think we've got 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. To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I'm very much afraid any program to salvage the banks is going to require the government... "
-------------------------------------
Graham of South Carolina is positive about nationalizing the banks (see above). For those here who don't understand, that means that the federal government will run the banks.

Question::: What do you think the next step will be to save our banking system??

The real question is, would that really be a BAD thing, considering that it's the banks greed that have brought the WORLD economy to it's knees??

Some serious regulation and oversight is what IS needed to ensure that this cannot happen again.

Start with firing the Ceo's and prosecuting the greedy, if they broke the law.

Unfortunately, Lindsey Graham is one of those Republicans who has to be reminded, from time to time, where he is from, as he has become a 'Washingtonian'.
Rush Limbaugh Counter-Attack: Bodyslams Colin Powell, RINOs & Washingtonians (Wow...must read)

Agreed . Lindsey Graham is a part time RINO .

On this issue Graham is left of the President .

Quote:

---

Moran: "There are a lot of economists who look at these banks and they say all that garbage that's in them renders them essentially insolvent. Why not just nationalize the banks?"
Obama: "Well, you know, it's interesting. There are two countries who have gone through some big financial crises over the last decade or two. One was Japan, which never really acknowledged the scale and magnitude of the problems in their banking system and that resulted in what's called 'The Lost Decade.' They kept on trying to paper over the problems. The markets sort of stayed up because the Japanese government kept on pumping money in. But, eventually, nothing happened and they didn"t see any growth whatsoever.
"Sweden, on the other hand, had a problem like this. They took over the banks, nationalized them, got rid of the bad assets, resold the banks and, a couple years later, they were going again. So you'd think looking at it, Sweden looks like a good model. Here's the problem; Sweden had like five banks. [He laughs.] We've got thousands of banks. You know, the scale of the U.S. economy and the capital markets are so vast and the problems in terms of managing and overseeing anything of that scale, I think, would -- our assessment was that it wouldn"t make sense. And we also have different traditions in this country."

---

Nationalizing banks is another name for protectionism. Geithner met with other state economic ministers at a G7 meeting and they as a group pledged to avoid protectionism . Geithner was grilled hard over the 'buy American ' provisions in the bucket list legislation just passed by Congress.

Let zombie banks die. We should let "banks' that can't pay their way go into bankruptcy, liquidation, work-outs or mergers.If you insist on using Federal Money then make sure FDIC is fully funded.

Hello wingers:

You can try to divert THIS discussion into one about MONEY instead of POLITICS.

But, it ain't working...

It USED to be, that you could count on the Republicans to be stalwart stewards of the nations money.

Not any more.

Look. I'm not sure about Obama's plan. But, the Republicans DON'T have a plan. It's like they've been banished to the desert to wander around for 40 years...

Poor, poor Republicans.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Look. I'm not sure about Obama's plan. But, the Republicans DON'T have a plan. It's like they've been banished to the desert to wander around for 40 years....

---

Geez the memory of folks around here is sure conveniently short. Inthebox and others including myself have freshened your memory previously on the GOP alternative plan.

If it was a better plan or not is irrelevant at this point since the 'Obama' stimulus is a done deal, and considering the convenient narrative is the GOP has no plan and is doing nothing besides rejecting Obama's grand 'bipartisan' overtures. Let's not let the truth get in the way of a good steamrolling of the GOP.

Hello Steve:

Look. I know the Republicans have come up some ideas they wrote down, put some numbers next to them, and called it a plan...

But, it has NO resemblance to ANYTHING remotely identifiable as CONSERVATIVE. This declaration by Lindsey Graham, a LEADER of the Republican party, is just more evidence of that void.

Is the Democrats plan any better?? No. But, at least nobody is surprised at the Democrats.

excon

My point was clear, "If it was a better plan or not is irrelevant at this point since the 'Obama' stimulus is a done deal, and considering the convenient narrative is the GOP has no plan and is doing nothing besides rejecting Obama's grand 'bipartisan' overtures."

Graham's revelation is disturbing to me but it's no surprise coming from him. I was merely addressing your narrative - straight from Democrat and liberal pundit talking points - and it isn't true. It isn't true that they offered no plan and these alleged 'bipartisan' overtures were all show and no substance.

You were asking about definitions on another post so I'm going to offer for a second time the definition of bipartisan:

Quote:

---

of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

---

Bipartisan does not mean "as long as it's Obama's/Reid's/Pelosi's way." You recognize, as do I, the lack of true conservative leadership so let's just cut the crap and call it what it is on both sides. Whaddya say?

Quote:

---

You can try to divert THIS discussion into one about MONEY instead of POLITICS.

---

My point is about politics .Part of the reluctance of the markets to start loaning again is the lack of confidence in the plans being proposed. Geithner waffled Tues before a national audience and had a pretty bad day Saturday at the G7 . (the market reacted terribly Tues and luckily today they have the day off) As I have been saying ;alot of this is perception and the markets will give a positive reaction when they have confidence in the gvt. Response. Threatening the banks with a Chavez-like takeover does not inspire confidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

cooperation, agreement, and compromise

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Threatening the banks with a Chavez-like takeover does not inspire confidence.

---

Hello again, Steve and tom:

In the spirit of compromise, Obama put tax cuts into the package before they were even asked for. I think that more than meets the criteria for bi-partisanship.

Tom, the banks are insolvent. That's just so. The only way to inspire confidence is if we address the problem. We're not yet. At LEAST Graham spoke the truth about it for the FIRST time.

excon

I know it's not really completely about this thread, but it's interesting all the same: BBC NEWS | Business | Timeline: Global credit crunch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

In the spirit of compromise, Obama put tax cuts into the package before they were even asked for. I think that more than meets the criteria for bi-partisanship.

---

That was not compromise, that was a campaign promise, "cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families." About the only "compromise" was to remove Pelosi's money for condoms, otherwise Obama told Republicans some things they wanted to hear then Pelosi and co. rammed their spending package down the throats of both Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.

That's what happens when the people have spoken, and kick the Republicans to the curb. 8 years was enough for this country. Pat on the head, give 'em a bone, ad chain 'em to the porch. Then the real work can get done and if that don't work, there is another election next year.

As for the banks, didn't they call Obama a communist for helping the banks during that bailout stuff last October?

What do you want Steve? Obama to adopt all of the Republicans ideas? Remember the Republicans got whipped big time. They're out! They have no mandate to ask for anything!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

What do you want Steve? Obama to adopt all of the Republicans ideas? Remember the Republicans got whipped big time. They're out! They have no mandate to ask for anything!

---

My argument has been focused on the false narrative. Am I wrong?

They removed money for condoms.. That's compromise. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

They removed money for condoms.. Thats compromise. :)

---

Uh yeah, I already noted that. :rolleyes:

Some insights into what President Obama thinks about bipartisan (at least while he was a Senator )

This from Audacity of Hope :

"Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith.
"If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'

"For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'"

[HT :Wall Street Journal
William McGurn Says Barack Obama's Stimulus Bill Fails the Standard of Bipartisanship Outlined in 'The Audacity of Hope' - WSJ.com]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curlyben

The real question is, would that really be a BAD thing, considering that it's the banks greed that have brought the WORLD economy to it's knees ?!?!

Some serious regulation and oversight is what IS needed to ensure that this cannot happen again.

---

I agree.

By the way, Canada's banking system is a model for the rest of the world; they have more regulations and are in a much safer position today as a result of them.

Next, we can nationalize newspapers. They pretty much toe the Democrat party line anyway and with the cost of a share of the NY Times being less than the Sunday paper...

http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/image770.png

The Maestro Greenspan (who the MSM now praises as a laissez-faire Guru... now that he thinks the way they do ,and has pled to the court jesters in Congress a big fat mea culpa) joined the chorus of those who are beginning to see beauty in the Swedish "receivership"solution as what he calls the least bad option for the banking mess.
1992, the Swedish government took over its insolvent banks, cleaned them up and reprivatized them.

But let's be honest... what are the chances the banking system would ever go private once the Alinskyites got their hands on them?

I'm in the process of going over the President's mortgage proposals today . I'm sure there is some more funding tucked away somewhere in the plan for the ACORN brownshirts to feed off.