Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pgardn
1. When this happened before in the 80's the government hired people from other banks to...
a. Put people in place within the system who they deemed worthy so that the bank could eventually be sold to Banks that remained solvent. Conflicts of interest were a problem, but it got these instituions OUT OF THE GOVTS
HANDS...
THis has actually been done before and it was not pretty. But might be prettier than letting them just dive. Can you say with certainty that if the banks fail, money will still flow? Because there are plenty of people that
believe the banks should not be allowed to fail, not because of longterm problems, but because the fire is in the damn house now and we are not worried about the longterm health of the furniture! Which will be a problem
to solve LATER.
Do you seriously believe that Obama wants to KEEP THE BANKS IN THE GOVERNMENTS CONTROL?
And if so how in the hell did you get this idea?
Since he did not say it. YOu just feel it, as a good
Republican? How the heck do you know he wants to do
this because he has indicated he wants to get them reorganized
and out of government control.
|
What happened in the 80's and what is going on now are two entirely different things.
And let me ask you this question. Why wouldnt Obama want to keep the banks in govt control? Govt control is the standard behind which he governs as shown by his first 2 months on the job. Certainly his Congressional leaders such as Pelsoi and Dodd would LOVE to have this authority over those dirty capitalists. Do you honestly believe that they wouldnt rather make these banks puppets of the state? Let me ask again, What incentive is there to give up control of these institutions? Do I have to make a list of things Obama or any other politician has said that they either have done a 180 degree reversal on or were simply not true? His ACTIONS speak louder than his words. And his actions indicate that the banks would retain some degree of govt control were they to recover.