Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

[BrianL]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

Hard to call that without seeing the numbers military folk gave to Obama/McCain. They could have given more to them without registering as a top 5 donor due to others. (ie they could have given 200k to them, dwarfing their Ron Paul contributions)

Not saying that is the case, just pointing out that we'd be jumping to conclusions without more data on military contributions.

I wanted to back this up with data, but the info I can find on the net is relatively contradictory and is filled with spin. There are well written summaries about how each candidate received more donations from military personnel than the others.

The only consistent point seems to be that the democrats received a significantly higher percentage this last year than four years earlier.

[cjppjc]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

CITI/TARP – The Worst Convert Ever




Last Friday Treasury agreed to convert $25 Billion of the TARP Pref for 36% of the common of Citi. The problem is that as of the close of business on Friday 36% of Citi is only worth $3 billion. This convert looks like a $22 Billion loss.

Wait a minute. I keep hearing that the taxpayer is going to make money on this investment. Do you mean to tell me that some politicians are not being truthfull.

[c1ue]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

More Obama 2012 propaganda from the Uno - or is it the Unobama?

Obama:

University of California $1,207,928
Goldman Sachs $1,007,323
Harvard University $827,210
Microsoft Corp $801,

The facts seem to say that Obama is the best of a bad lot.

Actual countervailing data:

(from opensecrets.org)

Sector	Total	To Dems	To Repubs
Agribusiness	$9,313,374	$3,704,484	$5,580,090
Communications/Electronics	$45,502,367	$35,419,163	$9,930,020
Construction	$20,223,425	$9,017,757	$11,156,527
Defense	$2,883,914	$1,661,201	$1,207,723
Energy & Natural Resources	$10,981,587	$4,221,947	$6,747,885
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	$129,384,053	$69,083,295	$60,172,225
Health	$40,948,335	$27,139,032	$13,710,552
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$95,178,343	$74,068,869	$21,040,586
Transportation	$7,740,461	$2,820,515	$4,900,323
Misc Business	$81,221,546	$51,310,804	$29,709,664
Labor	$1,127,627	$1,083,682	$42,595
Ideological/Single-Issue	$38,543,685	$24,994,773	$13,493,661
Other	$167,101,622	$109,464,750	$57,057,991

Since this is the Presidential data - Democrat = Obama and Republican = McCain.

So according to Uno's thesis, the $69M FIRE blood money received by Obama (vs. the $60M received by McCain) makes him independent of FIRE?

What about the $74M received by the Obama vs. the $21M received by McCain from the Lawyers and Lobbyists?

At least McCain has never pretended to be anything than what he is - not that I wanted to see either scoundrel in office.

[Uno]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

Another iTullip reader that learnt his/her "logic" skills from FOX & CNBC analysts or perhaps the US public school system. LOL.

The point is all the democrates and republicans that drive "fiscal policy" are funded by the same FIRE economy companies. Hence there is not much difference between democrat vs. republican fiscal policy in congress.

That is the answer to the question: Why isn't Obama nationalising banks?

However, there is a big difference in thier public rhetoric, too complex?

Obama is NOT funded by the FIRE economy to the same magnitude.

Tyring to equate Obama will total Democratic presidential funding is incorrect because the financial lobby bet on a Clinton vs. McCain win-win situation. This is the entire point of why Obama's win was such a shock to the establishment. They hate that they directly helped Obama get elected, ask Rick Santelli. LOL.

Clinton & McCain = opposite side of the same old neo-liberal clan.

Obama = better alternative, move in the right direction.

Ron Paul is NOT funded by the FIRE economy at all, but the US military, microsoft, and google.

McCain is a complete fake "Mr. Military keep us safe opportunist", mostly funded by the FIRE economy.

Yes the Democrates get a ton of funding from Lawyers. I would call it the FIREL economy because the legal industry is a monopoly and a huge tax on the american economy. This again is classic FOX & CNBC news "logic" - complain about financial industry policy because of the legal industry's campaign contributions. LOL

[Slimprofits]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

Tyring to equate Obama will total Democratic presidential funding is incorrect because the financial lobby bet on a Clinton vs. McCain win-win situation.

Actually the heavy money in 2007 when the race was more wide open was on Giuliani or Romney vs. Clinton or Obama. McCain lagged far behind in fundraising.

Here are the FIRE Sector totals for the total election cycle:

Obama: $37.6 million
McCain: $28 million
Clinton: $19 million

Uno is way off.

A rude m'fer too.

[due_indigence]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

The banks rule the world. The present times are too desperate for subtle machinations. So they are simply instructing their political cronies to re-capitalize them with public monies. It's bald-faced. But there it is.

Might they be so cynical as to realize their CDS exposure is so large as to be unrecoverable, and so they are getting one last swig of bonuses at tax-payer expense? That's possible too. The banks are insolvent to a degree that there is not enough wealth on earth to save them. So we are really about replenishing the bankers --not so much the banks. Look at the bonuses. Unabated. Ludricrous.

How cynical are you prepared to allow yourself to become? I myself have gone off the charts in the last twelve months, never to return to doey-eyed comfort levels again.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

The answer is short and easy. The banks have privatized the government.

JP Morgan owns the USA (and many other countries).

[ze100]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

I found this documentary so interesting, I felt compelled to share it.


I've come across an eye openning documentary about the IRS, the Elite and the relationships between the US government, Federal Reserve and the Big Investment banks. The movie was made in 2004, and it ends with the following quote, "And when the media start telling you that the country will fall apart if this is done [shutting down the Federal Reserve], that is just the Federal Reserve trying to save itself.". Sounds similar to the news that was fed to the US congress in Sept 2008, when the Federal Reserve and the Treasury were urging them to pass the 800 Billion USD bailout.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[quigleydoor]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

This may be naive, but, having watched Bill Moyers' Friday interview with Robert Johnson, I now think Obama might have a smart strategy. Given that Bush/Paulson "poisoned the well" of Congressional charity with their stupid TARP, Obama/Geithner are taking it slower than they otherwise would. Obama needs to build momentum on his reforms before they can really restructure the zombie banks meaningfully. With this in mind, it seems that Geithner's slow start is necessary. He is winning small political battles (relative to the struggle still to come) instead of losing politically by requesting larger amounts of capital than Congress can stomach.

[GeraldRiggs]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

why do you post something that is 10+ days old? Things have chnged since this came out and almost everyone has read this several times elsewhere??????

[GeraldRiggs]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

agreed. all this bullshit asking why the fed doesn't do this and that. Are you ******* kidding me????? Come on people wake up......the government is owned by the wall street banks! that's why the government keeps bailing them out over the objections of everyone. It's time for revolution! March on WDC!!!!!!

[c1ue]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

Another iTullip reader that learnt his/her "logic" skills from FOX & CNBC analysts or perhaps the US public school system. LOL.

The point is all the democrates and republicans that drive "fiscal policy" are funded by the same FIRE economy companies.

Hopefully the rest of your Obama cohort know how to use spellcheckers.

I thought McCain was supposed to be the Luddite?

Hence there is not much difference between democrat vs. republican fiscal policy in congress.

...

Obama is NOT funded by the FIRE economy to the same magnitude.

...

Tyring to equate Obama will total Democratic presidential funding is incorrect because the financial lobby bet on a Clinton vs. McCain win-win situation. This is the entire point of why Obama's win was such a shock to the establishment. They hate that they directly helped Obama get elected, ask Rick Santelli. LOL.

Clinton & McCain = opposite side of the same old neo-liberal clan.

Obama = better alternative, move in the right direction.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Perhaps my logic is flawed - I'm not sure how "The point is all the democrates and republicans that drive "fiscal policy" are funded by the same FIRE economy companies." somehow equates to "Obama is NOT funded by the FIRE economy to the same magnitude." or to "Obama = better alternative, move in the right direction".

Obama is not a Democrat? He ran as an independent? And I'm quite certain Obama came FROM Congress.

Or perhaps he somehow rises above his party, his immediate background, and his own hand picked Cabinet and Vice President?

You are indeed "Tyring" my already low amount of respect for your views.

[Chomsky]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

This is better than nationalizing the banks:

Capital markets are unstable. In the past there was no way to make them stable. But today we have computer power that can be used to make them stable.

By using the greater computer power of today we can have a much higher turn over of capital in the capital market. This higher turnover will make the market harder to game or control and the market will no longer have the unstable run ups or declines. Who can change or control the market when say 20% of the capital is trading each day?

So now that we have the compute power to provide for all these transactions that will smooth out the market how do we force people to turn over at a rate of 20% a day? Easy, put a cap gains tax of 0% (zero) on all gains of 7 days or less and put a cap gains tax of 90% of all gains of more than 7 days.

The likes of Yahoo, Micosoft and/or Sun Micro Systems will give us the systems that will provide automated software agents to support turning over one's investments every 7 days (based on the specs you give the agent).

A system like this will make the financial markets work as smoothly as the local fruit market.

If you say something three times, does that make it true?

http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=96040

http://itulip.com/forums/showthread....96041#poststop

[sandwind]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

I just wonder ... So the main problem are derivatives right ? So banks are owning money to some private persons because of bad bets right ? So at the end those trilions of $(big part of it) will go from public to those private persons that hold those derivatives yes ? Or I don't understand something. And if Obama nationalize the banks the banks would be more transparent and probably losts of "strange " would be stopped.

[metalman]

Re: Why isn't Obama nationalizing the banks?

I just wonder ... So the main problem are derivatives right ? So banks are owning money to some private persons because of bad bets right ? So at the end those trilions of $(big part of it) will go from public to those private persons that hold those derivatives yes ? Or I don't understand something. And if Obama nationalize the banks the banks would be more transparent and probably losts of "strange " would be stopped.

Major US banks worse than Japan's zombies?