What I was trying to say... but said much better!

I just posted a blog about the stimulus package and why it doesn't matter whether we like it or not.... it's going through. This article (tweet link courtesy of @ZanP) outlines very clearly why Mr. Obama and the Dems are so fired up about passing this thing.

The Truth About the Obama Agenda, Part I
By Wayne Allen Root
I have been asked by radio talk show hosts across the country to talk about President Obama’s possible – if not probable — nationalization of the banking system. But there’s more to the story than just banks.

This issue ties in with every aspect of the Obama Socialist Agenda — bailouts, handouts, economic stimulus packages, giving too much power to the Federal Reserve … and let’s not forget tax cuts to people who don’t pay taxes.

The Obama agenda isn’t about saving the American economy. Rather, it is about putting Big Brother in control of our lives. It’s about the Nanny State — big government intrusion into every aspect of our lives in order to “protect” us. It’s about destroying capitalism and tearing down the U.S. economy to build a new economic system based on rewarding the “right kind” of Americans — those who support Obama and his agenda.
http://blog.robertringer.com/2009/01/31/the-truth-about-the-obama-agenda-part-i/

Nationalization of banks around the corner?

Yesterday Nancy Pelosi publicly indicated nationalization was on the table (Nancy Pelosi - Nationalization of Banks a Good Idea? Yep.).

“Well, whatever you want to call it,” said Pelosi. “If we are strengthening them [banks], then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization."

Today I received the following article link in my daily round up of news that I torture myself with each morning:

Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look
Only five days into the Obama presidency, members of the new administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are already dancing around one of the most politically delicate questions about the financial bailout: Is the president prepared to nationalize a huge swath of the nation’s banking system?
Privately, most members of the Obama economic team concede that the rapid deterioration of the country’s biggest banks, notably Bank of America and Citigroup, is bound to require far larger investments of taxpayer money, atop the more than $300 billion of taxpayer money already poured into those two financial institutions and hundreds of others, The New York Times’s David E. Sanger reports.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/nationalization-gets-a-new-serious-look/

At first read, surprisingly for a New York Times article, it seemed fairly balanced. However, as I re-read it I came away with the feeling that the author was laying the groundwork, i.e., Obama really doesn't want to nationalize the banks, but the situation is worse than he thought so he'll be forced to take this drastic step.

“I would guess that sometime in the next few weeks, President Obama and Tim Geithner,” he said, referring to the nominee for Treasury secretary, “will have to come out and say, ‘It’s much worse than we thought,’ and just bite the bullet.”

There is a suggestion that IF Obama does go down the nationalization path it may only be for a few banks and that it may only be for a short time.

The argument in favor of nationalization, even a brief nationalization of a
few months or years, is straightforward: It might be the only way to pull
America’s largest financial institutions out of the downward spiral that makes
it enormously difficult to raise the capital they need to keep operating.

It's that old slippery slope. Look at history. Once government gets involved their tentacles tighten, they don't release their prey. Using another, hopefully less plausible, comparison dictators and the like often start out as saviors. They make this little change here, that change there and the next thing the citizens of their country realize, the dictator's new government has a stranglehold on everything.

The article did present a lot of good arguments as to why the Obama administration might be trying to steer clear of going the nationalization route. It seemed to me though, that the arguments were just included so we'd understand that it must be really, really bad if Obama is forced to make the horrible decision to nationalize banks given all the negatives. It set the stage for the masses to applaud Obama and friends for being forced to do this for the good of the country -- if it occurs.

In another article from Bloomberg (see link below) the author again seemed to be trying to state both sides of the issue while setting the stage for the inevitability of nationalization:

William K. Black, former lawyer at the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and Office of Thrift Supervision, said the Treasury could do better by assuming control of the companies and removing existing management altogether. By trying to avoid nationalizing the institutions, the government is wasting money, he said.
"It's insane to leave it in the control of the people who have every incentive to cover up the scale of the losses," said Black, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. "You're deliberately negotiating a bad deal for the American people by not getting an appropriate return for the risk you're taking."

and...

"If you took a nationalization policy, you would at least create some degree of certainty because now you know the government is going to stand behind these institutions," said Jacques, 49, who was an economist with the Treasury
Department for 14 years before becoming a finance professor at Baldwin-Wallace
College in Berea, Ohio.
And now? "It's almost like some kind of weird partial nationalization," he said.

So am I just over-sensitive to the potential subtleties in these articles? Is the media partnering with Obama in the softening of the American mind? Is nationalization of banks around the corner? Is the current economic downturn going to lead to the country embracing a change in our fundamental beliefs with open arms?

I guess we'll find out in one of our tomorrows.

Treasury's demands on banks seen as nationalization
(Bloomberg News Feed)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government's decision to pledge billions of additional dollars with strings attached to Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. may be nationalization by another name, according to former bankers and regulators.
Faced with pressure from lawmakers, banks have shaken up management, eliminated executive bonuses and staff and canceled conventions. They'll be forced to do monthly reports on how they've boosted lending while slashing quarterly dividends to 1 cent a share for three years.

Nancy Pelosi - Nationalization of Banks a Good Idea? Yep.

Nancy Pelosi was on ABC this morning with George Stephanopoulos. The entire interview was a dance and dodge performance, but even with all the flowery non-answers there were some whoppers that should have fiscally conservative, anti-socialistic, freedom loving Americans up in arms.

In this small snippet George asks Pelosi about nationalizing banks:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And many analysts have looked at it and said the only way to really deal with it, these banks are so close to insolvency, dealing with so many toxic assets, that the only way to deal with it fairly without giving a big boon to shareholders, is to have nationalization or partial nationalization of the banks.

Good idea?

PELOSI: Well, whatever you want to call it. There has to be - if we are going to put money into the banks we certainly want equity for the American people.

In other words, if we are strengthening them then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization. I'm not talking about total ownership but we're just saying.

Now how big that investment becomes is - would we have ever thought we would see the day when we'd be using that terminology? Nationalization of the banks.

You see the impact it has on the stock market. Just terrible in terms of the bank stocks going down. Because if you're a shareholder and you see what would be a dilution of your investment because now the federal government - if we're putting - if the taxpayer is putting money up, the taxpayer should have equity.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So it might be necessary?

PELOSI: Well, not by the terminology that you use but some increased investment. Change has to happen in terms of what is done, what the transparency of it is, what the accountability of it is. Only then would be able to pass any additional funding.

In this segment Pelosi explains why funding family planning services (i.e. abortion advocates, social engineering) stimulates the economy:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

Did you shake your head like I shook mine? Say what? I suppose that by giving away contraceptives the government is helping to decrease the birth rate and thereby is helping the would-be mother from buying diapers, etc., etc. Ya know, that's kind of a stretch.

We are headed in a direction that we do not want to go. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of people with their hands out. We're not willing to suffer a bit of hardship to maintain the freedoms that make us the best country ever. Ever.

We're giving our future away all so we can have multiple televisions, two or more cars in the garage and a house that's way above our means.

History is going to show that this was the time where we lost our way in America. Although, if we're heading down the path of socialism, chances are the history books of the future will reflect what the regime in power wants them to promote.

Here's the link to the full transcript: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=6725512&page=1 I watched it this morning, had to go find the transcript to see if I heard her correctly. Unfortunately, I did.

Want to know more about what's in the stimulus package? Check out "Read the Stimulus" (www.readthestimulus.org).