“After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can’t quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink.”

...um, still can’t understand that your Big Finance boys were (and still are) looting the nation for their own gain?  Can’t see how they totally tossed out the quaint concept that a company exists for some other purpose than to pay its top executives criminal amounts of money before being bailed by the government?  Don’t realize that the financial shenanigans of a place like Enron were not anomalies but the new face of American Capitalism?

“Clearly, I have been naive.”

I would think that’s rather obvious…

I agree that it’s pretty ridiculous for the WSJ dude to write this article, but it’s still possible that bank nationalization is still in the offing. 

If you just assume a low price for the toxic assets, use that to calculate that the banks are insolvent, and nationalize, you’re setting yourself up for a big lawsuit.  (Getting more regulatory authority from Congress could solve this problem, but we don’t have it yet.)  One of the virtues of the Geithner plan is that it allows the market to determine a price for the toxic assets, based on how much they’ll sell for.  If the banks are insolvent at that price, nationalization becomes a lot easier.

Given the amount of grief that Obama is gonna get no matter what he does, I don’t understand why he doesn’t just go ahead and nationalize the fucking banks.

My big fear in the current plan is that this is going to be Obama’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”... wanting to do what he thinks should be done to resolve this crisis, but foolishly allowing his position to get triangulated to appease Republicans who were never gonna be on board with anything he did anyway.

The immediate aftermath of DADT?

Repukes: “OMG!!!  He’s letting gays in the military!!!!”
Progressives: “Thanks for giving the LGBT community their very own ‘seperate but equal’ law.  Nice job, Bubba.”

And a likely aftermath of the Geithner Plan?

Repukes: “OMG!!! Premier Maobama is turning our banking system into socialism!!!!”
Progressives: “Good job, Barack.  Keep throwing money at the same assholes who got us into this mess.  Thanks a bunch, dude.”

The Washington Post article is a pretty good example of quality concern trolling.  They really want this honeymoon to end quick, don’t they?

And then I actually read the article in this post, go, eeeeewwwwww.  Now that’s *bad* concern assholery.

A+++ title would read again

It shows how white I am, but I love that Skee-Lo track.

It shows how white I am, but I love that Skee-Lo track

I must be white too, idiosynchronic, cause that was my jam in jr. high! I’m not ashamed to say I still have it on my ipod. Gonna go listen now….

(and oh yeah, Obama is damned if he does and damned if he don’t. I really just wish he would so the right wing could see how little the actual country cares about their boy who cried wolf bleeting).

I, too,  “wish I was like 6 foot 9 . . .”

Day 2: we ask the lower-rung workers who haven’t been fired to elect new management from among themselves. These people have institutional knowledge, and so in general they know who among coworkers are competent and trustworthy.

Day 3: we order the bank to start making loans to fix the liquidity crisis, because a nationalized company can safely operate at a loss during recession.

Day N-1: let a hundred flowers bloom.

Day N: profit!

Seriously, the question of “what do we do with a nationalized bank” is relatively easy, and well understood by economists.

The question of “how do we build the political will to nationalize the banks” is, well, the last 160+ years of history.

Bill Moyers interview with former S&R;regulator William K. Black: 

[Question] Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?

  [Black] Absolutely….

  They’re deliberately leaving in place the people that caused the problem, because they don’t want the facts. And this is not new. The Reagan Administration’s central priority, at all times, during the Savings and Loan crisis, was covering up the losses.
  [Question] So, you’re saying that people in power, political power, and financial power, act in concert when their own behinds are in the ringer, right?

  That’s right. And it’s particularly a crisis that brings this out, because then the class of the banker says, “You’ve got to keep the information away from the public or everything will collapse.”

Watch the interview here.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html

Whoops, forgot to add one thing.  Always remember:

Bankster wars ARE intelligence wars.

Intelligence wars are funded by banksters.

Bankster= Hyperbillionaire Banker + Gangster

The biggest banksters finance/own the Democrats and the Republicans, slime the halls of power anonymously, and move seamlessly between the corporate boards and the State Department (diplomatic corps, UN/IMF, etc.).  I personally know one of these men and he’s Swiss, and a staunch Socialist and a personal friend of Gorbachev, so when I hear the banksters described as “republicans” I laugh my ass off.  If they only knew.

One way you know George S - oros is small potatoes is that you’ve heard of him!  He would NEVER make the news if he were a “real” bankster. Even Kissinger and Brzezinski are merely lackeys for the banksters, the PR department if you will.

Anyway, I don’t think all the banksters share the same goals.  I think different factions are working at cross purposes to one another at the whole country/BIS/IMF/sovereign fund level, hence the huge financial clusterf*&*%6 we see today with certain events bleeding into the clueless/complicit mainstream media that would ordinarily remain unmentioned. I’m not sure which bankster faction we should be cheering for, because either way “the bunny gits it.” Don’t ask the rabbit to pick sides!