Geithner and Bernanke asked Congress for the power of nationalization yesterday,

[ej510]

but for some reason it was ignored by the mainstream media.

[Epiphany4z]

1. Because Obama used

a....gasp.....telepromter!!

[fascisthunter]

2. oh really????

anybody hear this? Have a linky... anybody?

[Skwmom]

4. Here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[fascisthunter]

6. thank you...

I posted that before I realized somebody below offered a link.

[Skwmom]

3. I wonder how many trillions this will cost?

The push for broader government authority was met yesterday with support and skepticism from legislators and firms that might soon be subject to more federal control, such as hedge funds, investment companies and large insurers.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032401310_2.html?sid=ST2009032401574

Whatever happened to the concept of free trade?

[DJ13]

5. Whatever happened to the concept of free trade?

Its the cause of our problems, not the solution to them.

[ej510]

7. I like Paul Krugman, but he has liberals going ape shit; evern though Obama is quietly moving

towards the left. the President knows what he is doing, but he cannot come right out, and say he is going to nationalize the banks until he has tried everything congress will not go for that.

[ellacott]

9. So very true

Rahm Emanuel says he understands what Krugman is saying but he has never tried to move legislation. When asked about this on Shuster's 1600 show Krugman agreed with what Emanuel said.

[Skwmom]

11. I don't need Krugman to do my thinking for me. I haven't read any

of his columns for quite some time.

So after giving TRILLIONS to the banks, we then take them over and are saddled with the most toxic of assets, things the "500 million minimum investment" big money investors didn't even want? And exactly why would I think this is a great idea?

[ej510]

12. Krugman, may be right; this is why Geithner and Bernanke want to have the power

of nationalization in their back pocket.

[Skwmom]

13. Sorry but the thought of twiddle dee and twiddle dum being given

the power to incur trillions of debt on behalf of the American Public just doesn't thrill me.

[Jennicut]

16. Its better then propping them up or letting them fail

Indymac already worked.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. "even though" ???

"has liberals going ape shit; even though Obama is quietly moving towards the left..."

Are we sure the two are not connected?

"has liberals going ape shit and, consequently Obama is quietly moving towards the left..."

Krugamn doesn't want to harm Obama. He wants to move him.

[ellacott]

8. The Pres discussed this in his news conference

He mentioned how businesses like AIG don't fall under the jurisdiction of the FDIC that when they fail there is no group that is able to manage it. He feels there should also be governing bodies with those powers that could step in when an institution that's "too big to fail" fails.

[ej510]

10. This is why we cannot fire the executives.

We do not hold these powers. Some changes cannot need made unless congress gives higher authorities the power to make changes.

[Romulox]

17. Nonsense. "Trustee in Bankruptcy". nt

[MessiahRp]

14. This is what we need to be doing...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27078582/

With AIG, Citi and some of the larger ones we should step in as the owners that we basically are now and break them apart and sell the pieces. No more of this too large to fail crap.

Rp

[ej510]

15. Bernanke said he began doing that last year.

[northernlights]

19. thinking on things Obama has said in the past

and how he's acted, I'd say he's using a carrot and stick approach.

Carrot -- we'll bail you out BUT you have to let us look at your books, accept tough regulations, cap your salaries, cancel your bonuses, cancel your new jet orders, etc. etc. etc.

Stick -- we'll take over, fire you, break apart and sell off your assets.

So, pick yer poison...:evilgrin: