Treasury Partially Nationalizes 9 Private Banks

[Gina.Maria]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/13/AR2008101300184.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Schade! If this keeps up there won't be an election in November! This looks like the final stages of a coup!

[Chreamps]

I don't want to look!:lalala

[Inkspots]

I didn't read the whole article, but is that money coming from the $700 billion or in addition to?

[FrenchRuby]

From, if what the BBC were saying this morning is correct.

Mr Brown just did the same thinga couple of days ago in the UK, 60% nationalisation of one bank and 40% of another. I think it's a great thing, taxpayers will get their money back.

[Gina.Maria]

It's coming from the rescue/bailout package. Congressional leaders are calling it a "bait-n-switch." The problem, FrenchRuby, is that these are solvent banks. They don't need or want a capital infusion. I'm incredibly concerned that concentrating that much power in one corner will spell our downfall. Bush and his cronies have control of our military, our intelligence and our security and now they've got our money. That doesn't leave us much to fight back with.

[Tiffikat]

I wonder which 9 banks...

[kjbstevens]

And now with the election people are wanting them to take over healthcare and a bunch of other stuff too.... Let's just keep giving them more power they haven't been granted. Ugh. It all makes me sick and in the past 2 weeks Bush has totally lost his mind. I agree with Gina.Marie. This isn't good. We will not see that tax money back until the next heavy election when the democrats will bring up throwing more money at us to make us think the gov't does great stuff for us and is looking out for us. Just like right now on the news they keep talking about if we'll all go and elect Obama they'll be sure to be able to throw another stimulus check to us. The more stupid stuff Bush does, the more it just hurts McCain who I really think wants to change and reform things, but how can if he they get used to all of this power. No one is going to work with him to get rid of it so it doesn't make him plans look as feasible if the gov't keeps growing at this rate until January. None of this campaign stuff is going to come to light probably because the Republican have gone stupid and greedy too.

[Tiffikat]

Obama's healthcare plan does NOT turn healthcare over to the government. Check out the links about it in the rumors thread from fact check.

[HLWalter725]

I'm definitely NOT liking the look of this.

[kjbstevens]

No one said Obama's plan turns it over to the gov't. Many in the US want the gov't to take control and nationalization which was what I said please read the whole thing that was said because I never said Obama please before jumping.

The local news here isn't painting a pretty picture on this either. I also want to know the banks.

[Tiffikat]

Ahh, I'm sorry I assumed. I misunderstood what you were saying.

[kjbstevens]

It's okay. It's just what goes wrong with half the threads is people get touch when names aren't mentioned too. We all do it. ;)

I still keep wondering where on Earth this is stuff is coming from all of sudden. Is this because he is doing it to work with Europe and the world on the problem and they came up with this plan this weekend? That is the only excuse I can think of because otherwise this Treasury guy is bad news and they are really redefining our gov't for their own gain.

[Tiffikat]

Unfortunately I'm more inclined to believe they are doing it for their own gain. I don't have a lot of faith in politicians and elected officials currently.

[Miss Chris]

I can't take it! I am sticking my head even further into sand!!!

[tammy1999]

I liked what the government did when Crysler asked for governemt help all those years ago. The government bought low Crysler stock, gave them a loan and when Crysler paid back the loan, the government sold the stock and made a ton.

[Gina.Maria]

Some government loans have paid off. Clinton loaned money to Mexico that was repaid in 3 years and we made something like $600,000,000 in interest and fees.

[kjbstevens]

Well it would be awesome to give out loans if we actually had the money to do it, but this country is in debt. They are giving them money that they already owe elsewhere.

[scribler]

It's coming from the rescue/bailout package. Congressional leaders are calling it a "bait-n-switch." The problem, FrenchRuby, is that these are solvent banks. They don't need or want a capital infusion. I'm incredibly concerned that concentrating that much power in one corner will spell our downfall. Bush and his cronies have control of our military, our intelligence and our security and now they've got our money. That doesn't leave us much to fight back with.

Does anyone know for sure whether or not these 9 bank had requested intervention? My dh and I do not agree on this point (I don't think they did), so if anyone has links to show one way or the other that would be great. Cause if I am right this scares the crap out of me. If they asked for the money, then it will seem more reasonable to me.

And here's a quote from a different Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101400738.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2008101302921&s_pos=) naming the nine banks.

"The nine banks that have agreed to government investment are: Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Wells Fargo. "

[Hummie]

Well, aint that *superlative* ....my bank's name is on that list.

[lunafaerie]

Does anyone know for sure whether or not these 9 bank had requested intervention? My dh and I do not agree on this point (I don't think they did), so if anyone has links to show one way or the other that would be great. Cause if I am right this scares the crap out of me. If they asked for the money, then it will seem more reasonable to me.

And here's a quote from a different Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101400738.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2008101302921&s_pos=) naming the nine banks.

"The nine banks that have agreed to government investment are: Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Wells Fargo. "

That's like all the major banks that are left.

[lorig]

Does anyone know for sure whether or not these 9 bank had requested intervention? My dh and I do not agree on this point (I don't think they did), so if anyone has links to show one way or the other that would be great. Cause if I am right this scares the crap out of me. If they asked for the money, then it will seem more reasonable to me.




I haven't sought out multiple sources or anything like that yet, however, my reading of the first article is that they did not seek help and were reluctant to agree to the deal. It sounded like they were pressured into it for the good of the economy and to remove the stigma that might be attached to accepting help for the smaller banks.

I'm interested to see how this plays out but not very encouraged by what I am seeing so far.

[Gina.Maria]

That's correct. The banks were all solvent at the time of the agreement and were not enthusiastic about participating. I've got to see about moving my money to a credit union.

[kjbstevens]

From anything I've read they had the choice to take the money but if they did they didn't have a say in what happened to them basically. So by taking the money they lose the control.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

I don't know what to think.

They say here: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/13/ST2008101302921.html) "The government's role will be limited and temporary," Bush said from the Rose Garden. "These measures are not intended to take over the free market, but to preserve it."

Bush said this morning that while the new programs might seem "distant" to the lives of everyday people, they will directly affect the ability of small businesses to obtain operating cash and households to finance auto, home and other major purchases. The government investment will "help healthy banks continue making loans, and this new capital will help struggling banks fill the hole created by losses in the financial crisis," Bush said.

Ultimately, Paulson said, the intent is not for the government to take over banks or own them over the long run, but to rebuild the trust between institutions who have all but stopped lending to one another.

"We regret having to take these actions," Paulson said in a speech this morning delivered alongside Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and others. "There is a lack of confidence in our financial system -- a lack of confidence that must be conquered because it poses an enormous threat."

One a good note here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101400738_2.html?sid=ST2008101302921&s_pos=): News that European governments also planned to take stakes in their banks and anticipation of the U.S. measures unleashed a tremendous surge in U.S. stock prices yesterday, with the Dow Jones industrial average soaring to the biggest percentage gain since the 1930s, up 11.1 percent. It ended 936.42 points higher, the largest point gain ever, just days after the Dow had its steepest weekly decline in history.

I am just sitting back and waiting. What else can we do. Try to stash away where we can. Thank God gas prices fell dramatically. I am taking the money I am now saving in gas and putting in savings and leaving it alone.

[scribler]

I just found this New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy/15bailout.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=business) article that pretty much backs up my belief that not all of these banks needed or wanted government investment. They were forced into it in order to avoid stigmatizing those who needed the government's help. I find this deeply disturbing.

[Gina.Maria]

I'm so glad we've found some common ground here. :)

[FrenchRuby]

The banks in the UK were also solvent in terms of being able to function as normal, but Mr Brown and his 'advisors' wanted them to be tsunami-proof, and asked them to arrange capitalisation accordingly. RBS and HBOS/Lloyds weren't able to sufficiently recapitalise from their own resources, so HM Govt bought shares to do it for them.

What I want to know, is why the tsunami-proofing? WTF is coming next that WE don't know about yet?

[Hummie]

I found humor in my mail....not sure if you all do or not (http://blog.hummiesworld.com/2008/10/they-made-it-easierthey-want-my-money.html), but you can read about it on my blog.

[NellieRose]

I just found this New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy/15bailout.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=business) article that pretty much backs up my belief that not all of these banks needed or wanted government investment. They were forced into it in order to avoid stigmatizing those who needed the government's help. I find this deeply disturbing.

Yes, it is truly disturbing that the US government has barged in and taken partial ownership on businesses that didn't even request it.

It doesn't matter if it is temporary or not, it's an intrusion of epic proportions and leads you to wonder where it will end..... :shrug

Anyone care to jump in now and slam Obama for what they deem his Socialistic plans for America??? For those that believe Barack Obama has some secret socialist agenda, it looks like George W. Bush beat him to it. ;)

[kjbstevens]

It's not that Obama is socialist. Just many of the left side want to further that road. He just gets caught in the party crossfire. Bush has done some crazy stuff in the past 3 weeks to try to be "bipartisan" as he is calling it.

[NellieRose]

He just gets caught in the party crossfire. Bush has done some crazy stuff in the past 3 weeks to try to be "bipartisan" as he is calling it.

LOL....oh is this what he is calling it now, "bipartisan"? :lol

[kjbstevens]

Yeah great time/way to decide be bipartisan huh?

US News and World Report I find pretty reputable. HERE (http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/081009/09_as_the_economy_sinks_so_do_odds_of_a_tax_cut.ht ml?.&.pf=taxes) it is.

[lunafaerie]

Yes, it is truly disturbing that the US government has barged in and taken partial ownership on businesses that didn't even request it.

It doesn't matter if it is temporary or not, it's an intrusion of epic proportions and leads you to wonder where it will end..... :shrug

Anyone care to jump in now and slam Obama for what they deem his Socialistic plans for America??? For those that believe Barack Obama has some secret socialist agenda, it looks like George W. Bush beat him to it. ;)

Seriously, but government control with no accountability is more like fascism than socialism. I'm sure I'll get flamed for that, but seriously think about it. Who is going to hold the banks accountable if the gov't has a majority share? We all know the last 8 years have been about Executive control while whittling away accountability through various means.

If anyone is really scared, this book by Naomi Wolf will send you straight over the edge.
http://www.amazon.com/End-America-Letter-Warning-Patriot/dp/1933392797

You can hear her 45 minute lecture on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

[strangejen]

For those that believe Barack Obama has some secret socialist agenda, it looks like George W. Bush beat him to it.

LOL!!!

[NellieRose]

Seriously, but government control with no accountability is more like fascism than socialism. I'm sure I'll get flamed for that, but seriously think about it.

:clap Suddenly Obama's ideas shouldn't look radical as some like to call it...look what our government has already done.

Don't worry about flames, I can assist you with "Stop, Drop & Roll".:wub

[kjbstevens]

Nah actually for once Tania I agree with you. :eek:lol
It rubs me more like seizing assets or something even if they say it's temporary. I'm actually to the point I'm hoping they are hiding something from us they are trying to protect us from. I guess in the long run at least they'd have an excuse then. That's a sad point to get too.

[lunafaerie]

Nah actually for once Tania I agree with you. :eek:lol

:lol yay!!!

[Chreamps]

:rofl2:rofl2:rofl2I can assist you with "Stop, Drop & Roll".

Love that, Jayne!

[scrapper_gal]

I don't usually post in the politics thread but I must say you ladies have been extremely nice to each other in this thread. As a died-in-the-wool Republican I think what GWB has done is phenemonally "unrepublican". I would imagine there are Republicans all over congress falling off their chairs wondering what happened to the party of "small government".

Secondly, while these banks didn't ask for support some of them can't be on super solid ground. Chase has made some big purchases in the last few months (including the troubled Countrywide) and many are questioning how they are going to be able to rebound. B of A is now the largest issuer of credit cards and if the crisis gets more serious many think BOA (aren't their initials interesting since they are most known as a credit card bank) is going to be next on the chopping block. There is more to be said about some of the other banks as well I would join those who question the long term viability of these two banks. Since they are "main street"l banks their failure would have a much broader impact than a wall street failure.

[scribler]

I'm so glad we've found some common ground here. :)

Me too. :O)

[scrapper_gal]

Obama's healthcare plan does NOT turn healthcare over to the government. Check out the links about it in the rumors thread from fact check.

After spending a decade in healthcare finance I would argue that the government already de facto controls healthcare anyway.

Since Medicare is the largest payer of medical claims for most hospitals, many simply default to the medicare rules for all of their payers. And most insurance companies tend to adopt Medicare guidelines in their operations anyway so, essentially, we already "almost" have government run healthcare.

[Tiffikat]

That's an interesting take on it. I don't think I've ever thought about it that way before, but it does make sense.

[lunafaerie]

After spending a decade in healthcare finance I would argue that the government already de facto controls healthcare anyway.

Since Medicare is the largest payer of medical claims for most hospitals, many simply default to the medicare rules for all of their payers. And most insurance companies tend to adopt Medicare guidelines in their operations anyway so, essentially, we already "almost" have government run healthcare.

But it's not all government funded. I may be wrong, but isn't one of the main arguments against federal involvement in health care related to taxes and not just regulation?

[scrapper_gal]

You are right, it is not gov't funded (unless it is medicare, medicaid or Triwest for military families). However, for our hospital Medicare patients account for nearly 2/3 of our hospital case load and about half of our outpatients. They already control a really big piece of the pie.

I think most of the concerns have to do with accessibility. The stories of months long waiting lists to see specialists or have a CT seem to be the biggest problems many address. I think the add'l gov't employees required to administer this program would be staggering. Most people in healthcare don't like how the gov't programs (i.e. Medicare) are run and can't imagine how impossible things would be if they were in control of everything.

[Florida Cindy]

I can't take it! I am sticking my head even further into sand!!!

I hope it's a beautiful beach! :lol

Oh, you may want to to take your head out of the sand before high tide! Just kidding!

[Florida Cindy]

After spending a decade in healthcare finance I would argue that the government already de facto controls healthcare anyway.

Since Medicare is the largest payer of medical claims for most hospitals, many simply default to the medicare rules for all of their payers. And most insurance companies tend to adopt Medicare guidelines in their operations anyway so, essentially, we already "almost" have government run healthcare.

Healthcare, money.......what else will the government control for us?

[Gina.Maria]

Does anyone remember the stuff about the North American Union (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965)that was brought up several months ago? I think Steinway's Mom is the one who initially mentioned it, though I could be mistaken. Some of that information is echoing in my mind as all of these things start falling into place.

[kjbstevens]

Might as well. A good amount of Mexico already lives here and I never really thought of Canadians as any different than us. Why not if you are going to change our gov't go ahead and get rid of all the laws we have holding them back.

[txmusicmom]

:cry:cry:cry


:pray :pray :pray

[kinderkim]

This is seriously scary. I'm with whoever said they're moving to a credit union.

It's official-The Shrub has gone mad. He's a total lunatic, and he seriously scares me at this point. He still has what, about 90 days in office? Nightmare city.

[[michele]]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081015/earns_jpmorgan_chase.html

Crap. NOT what I wanted to read this morning.

:( Michele