PDA

View Full Version : Back Door Nationalization of Banks?



Kathianne
04-20-2009, 05:53 AM
Those stress tests were going to be problematic, so Geithner came up with another way around. It's all ok, since the US taxpayer can certainly afford more coerced risk taking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/business/20bailout.html?ref=business


April 20, 2009
U.S. May Convert Banks’ Bailouts to Equity Share

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s top economic advisers have determined that they can shore up the nation’s banking system without having to ask Congress for more money any time soon, according to administration officials.

In a significant shift, White House and Treasury Department officials now say they can stretch what is left of the $700 billion financial bailout fund further than they had expected a few months ago, simply by converting the government’s existing loans to the nation’s 19 biggest banks into common stock.

Converting those loans to common shares would turn the federal aid into available capital for a bank — and give the government a large ownership stake in return.

While the option appears to be a quick and easy way to avoid a confrontation with Congressional leaders wary of putting more money into the banks, some critics would consider it a back door to nationalization, since the government could become the largest shareholder in several banks.

The Treasury has already negotiated this kind of conversion with Citigroup and has said it would consider doing the same with other banks, as needed. But now the administration seems convinced that this maneuver can be used to make up for any shortfall in capital that the big banks confront in the near term.

Each conversion of this type would force the administration to decide how to handle its considerable voting rights on a bank’s board.

Taxpayers would also be taking on more risk, because there is no way to know what the common shares might be worth when it comes time for the government to sell them....

Mr. P
04-20-2009, 07:52 AM
So, the all knowing wiser than us government refuses to allow individuals to invest their own money in a private social security account because "IT'S TOO RISKY" but it's okay for the government to invest our money in stocks of failing banks.

We're screwed!

On the positive...this is type fuel that will feed the tea party movement. :salute:

glockmail
04-20-2009, 08:32 AM
So why is a reference to "tea bagging" bad when libs do it but a reference to "back door" OK?

Kathianne
04-20-2009, 08:38 AM
So why is a reference to "tea bagging" bad when libs do it but a reference to "back door" OK?

Not sure what you mean by equating the two. Back door.

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=back+door&search=search


back door 
–noun
1. a door at the rear of a house, building, etc.
2. a secret, furtive, or illicit method, manner, or means.


tea bagging, only found in urban dictionaries and I'm not posting meaning.

glockmail
04-20-2009, 09:11 AM
Not sure what you mean by equating the two. Back door.

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=back+door&search=search




tea bagging, only found in urban dictionaries and I'm not posting meaning.


Jim Morrison claimed to be a back-door (http://www.ehow.com/how_2026458_perform-rear-position.html) man, a blues singer's code for someone who prefers to enter his lovers from behind. Here's how to negotiate the position. Talk to hubby about this one Kate.

Monkeybone
04-20-2009, 09:48 AM
So why is a reference to "tea bagging" bad when libs do it but a reference to "back door" OK?

if it keeps getting repeated over and over with a smirk so that you know what they mean when they say it....then it is just as bad. right now it just means a sneaking in "yoink!" maneuver.

context glockie...context.

Kathianne
04-20-2009, 09:59 AM
Talk to hubby about this one Kate.

I am not letting you take anymore of the English language away if I can prevent it. As I said, you may come up or ascribe meanings based on others hijacking words or phrases, but back door is a common phrase, not comparable to the other term.

Feel free though to ban one or both words on your own site. I'm done with this 'off topic debate.'

glockmail
04-20-2009, 11:55 AM
if it keeps getting repeated over and over with a smirk so that you know what they mean when they say it....then it is just as bad. right now it just means a sneaking in "yoink!" maneuver.

context glockie...context.
WTF is "yoink"?

Little-Acorn
04-20-2009, 11:58 AM
Back Door Nationalization of Banks?

What's backdoor about it?

Simple nationalization, is all it is.

glockmail
04-20-2009, 11:58 AM
I am not letting you take anymore of the English language away if I can prevent it. As I said, you may come up or ascribe meanings based on others hijacking words or phrases, but back door is a common phrase, not comparable to the other term.

Feel free though to ban one or both words on your own site. I'm done with this 'off topic debate.'

:lol: I dunno Kate being a Doors and Zappa fan, ever since the 60's "back door" and "four on the floor" have only meant one thing. :lol:

glockmail
04-20-2009, 12:01 PM
Back Door Nationalization of Banks?

What's backdoor about it?
True it seems like a blatant full frontal to me. Either that or a *****. Depends on which bank I suppose.

Monkeybone
04-20-2009, 12:44 PM
WTF is "yoink"?

yoink is like surprise! gotcha! sorta thing. out from under your nose.

Monkeybone
04-20-2009, 12:52 PM
True it seems like a blatant full frontal to me. Either that or a *****. Depends on which bank I suppose.

we are talking about a guy that said that there is no way that we will let the dollar be taken from being the reserve currency and then they next day saying how we have to be open to it.

glockmail
04-21-2009, 08:03 AM
we are talking about a guy that said that there is no way that we will let the dollar be taken from being the reserve currency and then they next day saying how we have to be open to it. But why edit out "four on the floor"? It's just a gear shift. *shrug*