Nationalizing The Banks

**Scanner** · 02-18-2009, 04:32 AM

LOL. . .why do I think having a discussion on this with someone on this subject who's tagline is "Fight for your gun rights!" is going to be productive?

I actually think he should nationalize the banks. Just get it over with and then sell it back to the private sector in 5 years.

Nationalization should be the final penalty for incompetence and the CEO's have been incompetent.

I know most people want to naturally protect them and the American dream but I say Obama, like Elliot Ness, should go in, kick them out, kick up his feet on their mahogany desks, and smoke their Cuban Cigars and say, "Yeah, I own you now."

Then, place them in customer service for 38K/year and in an HMO after seizing their assets.

Just because you nationalize the banks doesn't mean you nationalize the economy.

**Broken Arrow** · 02-18-2009, 06:03 AM

Haha, I fully agree with Scanner on this.

The bailout package isn't free money. It is a loan from us fellow taxpayers and it SHOULD have strings attached. It SHOULD demand transparency. And when necessary, the government SHOULD be allowed to step in and say, "That's not a good use of the taxpayers' money. I'm not going to let you do that. Now fix it."

To have government oversight over a loan fronted by we, the taxpayers, does not equate to Socialism in my book. I think the greater danger is to expose our money to the risk of being misused or embezzled due to having too little oversight.

---

Not to detract too much from the topic, what does get me is that Obama might go after ammo as a way to get around the 2nd Amendment. I have to admit that's pretty clever, but I personally fail to see how that is going to stop, say, gun-related crimes.

Your typical street thug does not require too many bullets to commit a crime. In fact, they might not even need any ammo at all to, say, rob a convenience store.

In other words, placing any regulation and fees on ammo is simply a way to tax legitimate, law-abiding gun owners out there, and we are already paying through the nose for ammo right now.

I'm hoping that this doesn't come to pass though, and the price of ammo will start to subside. It's a good thing I still have a small stash left....

**woodie96** · 02-18-2009, 06:19 AM

I agree with BA and scanner. The thing that I just don't get, is where the term "transparency" comes in. I guess it is one of those great new catch phrases.
For me, I prefer the terms oversight and accountability. If I don't do my job correctly, then most likely I won't have it long. If I screw up bad enough, it just might cost my boss his also.
But to have the government in total control of it would not be a good thing. The government seems to mess up everything it puts it hands on.
Like the old saying....."Im from the government and I'm here to help."

**GREENBACK** · 02-18-2009, 06:34 AM

I think they want to nationalize the economy eventually. The banks and the health care system are just a start and if you think it's temporary you're drinking the kool-aid. They are going to do this slowly and meticulously. They want to convince everyone that the system functions best with goverment in control of everything. This is not new. Do some research on the top ranking democrats and it will leave no doubt in your mind how they want american society to operate.

_

On the gun control issue, there's no doubt where they stand there. If they could outlaw all guns tommorow they certainly would and their voting record proves that. I stand with you as a fellow Ohioan Angio 333.

**GREENBACK** · 02-18-2009, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by woodie96 View Post

I agree with BA and scanner. The thing that I just don't get, is where the term "transparency" comes in. I guess it is one of those great new catch phrases.
For me, I prefer the terms oversight and accountability. If I don't do my job correctly, then most likely I won't have it long. If I screw up bad enough, it just might cost my boss his also.
But to have the government in total control of it would not be a good thing. The government seems to mess up everything it puts it hands on.
Like the old saying....."Im from the government and I'm here to help."

Perhaps "transparency" like the pork filled stimulus bill that no one was given a chance to read before it was passed.

**SavingCash** · 02-18-2009, 09:15 AM

I think nationalized banks are a bad idea. It's an effective monopoly, and you can say goodbye to competitive interest rates on savings-related products.

**sweeps** · 02-18-2009, 09:21 AM

Many smart people are advocating temporary "nationalization".

**Scanner** · 02-18-2009, 09:24 AM

SavingCash,

Yeah, what would I do without that money market account at BoA where I stuff my escrowed tax money. I am not sure where else I could get .52% interest thanks to all the competition.

**EEinNJ** · 02-18-2009, 09:29 AM

That's not rumor at all, Alan Greenspan was just quoted with that opinion. Not that we should listen to him anymore! The idea is the government can then absorb the cost of bad assets, which ultimately means we, the taxpayer. The only thing worse than greedy, incompetent bankers would be incompetent bureaucrats running the banks!

Oh, and reloading is the way to go!

**GREENBACK** · 02-18-2009, 10:02 AM

It will be great. When the goverment nationalizes everything we won't have to shop for interest rates or look for higher paying jobs or even worry about competitiveness in anything. They'll determine what you earn, what you read,what you write, what you do, what you watch and what you say. I'll likely be assasinated for a post like this.

What they're doing with the banks makes me think of an educational system where nobody gets an F. They fall down and are immediately propped back up and told I'm ok, you're ok.

Great thing to pass on to our children, eh?

**sweeps** · 02-18-2009, 10:13 AM

Oh brother...

**GREENBACK** · 02-18-2009, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by sweeps View Post

Oh brother...

I'm being intentionally facetious in my post but it's to drive home the point that the gov't has never stepped in and fixed anything by spending money or taking over anything and this won't be a first. If you know of an example please e-mail the White House. They should really look at a real model of how this can work.

I have been a federal and state employee for most of my working career. The military is pretty efficient but it really goes downhill from there. I don't see how another gov't created, inefficient bureaucracy( which is what they'll create with another "needed" stimulus) will help the banks or any other part of the private sector.

**Scanner** · 02-18-2009, 10:46 AM

Funny how the military is so efficient when it commands an awful large %age of my tax dollar.

Medicare operates with abou 97% efficiency. For every $100 collected, 97 go back out in the form of healthcare.

Private insurers don't even come close. THey have to spend money on billboards so people can beleive they have your health interests at heart (picture of a mom holding a baby or something).

**GREENBACK** · 02-18-2009, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Scanner View Post

Funny how the military is so efficient when it commands an awful large %age of my tax dollar.

Medicare operates with abou 97% efficiency. For every $100 collected, 97 go back out in the form of healthcare.

Private insurers don't even come close. THey have to spend money on billboards so people can beleive they have your health interests at heart (picture of a mom holding a baby or something).

It's great that they can do that but for how long? How about social security? When will the gov't have to pick these two giants up off the ground?

I should have said the military is relatively efficient compared to the rest of the federal gov't. There is tremendous waste at all levels but at least we haven't had another 9/11 and I'll waste a little money for that.

Nationalizing The Banks