Bankster-Gangsters

He could get it fixed on Wall St.
create real jobs on Main St.
and select a better crew,
He’d end blank checks to Israel
and bring some peace to that hell
—if he only had a clue

He could make the Congress line up
if he pressed them all to sign on
but instead he tries to woo
the right-wing crooks who hate him
and will still block and berate him
—if he only had a clue

He could deal with all the Repugs
imprisoning the worst thugs
and save the constitution too
but instead he will continue
their imperialist venue,
—if he only had a clue

He could close down all our gulags
and end so-called “renditions”
but this he will not do—
He could bring the world together
and address the changing weather
—if he only had a clue

louise..your link to kanjorski brings up an issue that is very much contested.  i’m not one who claims to have a strong understanding of the games big money plays.  if u google “kanjorski and the money market funds” you’ll find out how contested his assertions are.

u said: “Since we’ve never been here [a run on all banks] before, we need to find a way to get out of here!”  well, we have been here before.  roosevelt shut down the banks (the bank “holiday”) in 1933 for just this reason.  he had a crew of economic advisers who were able to come up with a plan that stopped the run.

joseph stiglitz, robert kuttner, paul krugman, dean baker, and james galbraith are all well-respected economists. (well, at least to liberals)  i’m sure all these guys voted for barackstar.  they all have major doubts about geithner’s approach.  they favor getting the fdic in and getting things straightened out as quickly as possible.  they have no interest in seeing barackstar fail.  they just want him to do what many of us feel is the right thing…and do it quickly.

Funny seeing the many anti-Geithner screeds coming from news outlets firmly in the British camp these past 30, 40 years. What’s the matter? A little political posturing making the hedgies nervous Geithner is not a “my way or the highway” kind of guy like Paulson? Did he leave too much in the lap of Congress for the taste of the masters of wildcat speculative madness? I just heard that fascist hack Luskin ranting on Geithner, too. You people are weak. Your targeting Geithner reveals your position is exposed and vulnerable. A sore lack of rational analysis is seen pinning anything negative implicating the leadership of this President at a time when ANYONE WITH TWO EYES can see Treasury is leaving it to Congress to set clearer priorities in how the full spectrum of issues associated with the greatest theft in any eight-year period in the history of the nation will be dealt with. As soon as Congress finds a way to bring up its approval rating to anywhere near Obama’s, then we can look at the President.

Cocco’s analysis attempts to bring the President down to the level of an inept Congress led by an incompetent, Speaker Pelosi. How offensive.

Geithner’s attempt to sell the plan, first to Wall Street and then to Congress, didn’t work because the plan itself suffers from terrible flaws, not because Geithner is inarticulate.  Having the President join Geithner in trying to sell it to the Congress and to the public won’t cure the flaws.  The most obvious flaw in the plan is that it provides for the government, meaning all of us taxpayers, to accept the risk of the bad debts, while providing for the existing shareholders to get the benefits of cleaning those bad debts off the books of the banks that were stupid enough to incur those bad debts.  Until that changes, the plan ought to be rejected by all concerned.

Marie

If President Obama has not signed off on Geithner’s performance we have NO government.

If President Obama has signed off on Geithner’s performance we have NO government.

The probable truth is that Obama has not the slightest banking-clue himself and relies 100% on Geithner’s “expertise”. In other words: “Mr. Secretary if that is what you think you must say, say it”. “Mr. Secretary if that is what you think you must do, do it”.

The probable truth is that we have NO government and will not get one soon. Why would Mr. Obama go hands-on when he has no hands?

To me all of this ’ too big to fail ” nonsense means is too big period . How about reinstituting or simply enforcing antitrust laws ? I don’t just mean on banks either , media companys , oil companys and right down the line , break these corrupt bastards up . Until we do we’re going to have the same priblems over and over , TR understood this and it worked , it would certainly be a good place to start . Has anybody heard anyone in the Obama administration mention antitrust action , I haven’t either .

It may sound surprising in the good ol US of A, but I think the plan Obama needs to sell is nationalizing the banks.  You can sell it by saying the government is ‘taking over’ the ‘failed’ institutions (we do that all the time) AND we are firing every executive above the level of .... (whatever is appropriate).

Take them over and throw the bums out!  Sounds good to me.

Make that “pour,” not “pore.” 

When George Bush Sr. was running against Ronald Reagan, he rightly called Reagan’s economic plans “voodoo economics.”

Too bad the “morning in America” people didn’t listen to him because the voodoo has worn off after twenty-eight years of go-go and flim-flam and we’re all paying the price. 

When Bush Sr. lost the nomination and took the VP spot, he stopped talking about the reckless idiocy of Reagan’s policies and applied his fertile and larcenous mind to figuring out how to personally
profit from the madness, which he and his family
have done mightily.

Here’s where we stand now according to a Congressman who is honest enough to put all the cards on the table. What gets artificially pumped up, must come crashing down.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/559.html

Banks operate on something called the fractional reserve system which means if everyone - or even just a lot of people - withdraw their money from a bank all at once, it goes bust.

Federal Deposit Insurance nominally protects depositors on the first $100,000 - now $250,000 - of losses in a bank failure.

There’s just one problem with the system.

It’s not funded adequately to deal with system-wide failure. If this politician is to believed, we came very close to a total system-wide meltdown, and as he correctly admits, no one knows if this kind of a run will occur again.

Nothing is stopping it.

Since we’ve never been here before, we need to find a way to get out of here!

The media, and a lot of the public seem to think a magic wand is out there, and Obama is letting us down because he wont wave it. Which only underlines how little they understand the depth and breadth of this problem! They’ve decided Obama should know exactly what to do and should be screamed at for not doing whatever it is!

Marie Cocco seems to think Obama should step up and calm our jangled nerves. She suggests he doesn’t want to get his hands dirty, which only underlines how little SHE understands the problem. Might make us all feel better, but wouldn’t solve the problem.

I suspect those who most aggressively express their discontent don’t want their nerves calmed, or a solution. They simply want another excuse to bash Obama. So I suggest if the bashers have a workable plan we would ALL LOVE to hear it! That includes you Marie!

Anger is understandable, I’m angry too. But I’ve been angry since Reagan first opened this can of worms and nobody seemed to much care back then, so long as their piggy-bank was full!

If there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, it might be PAY ATTENTION! Not after the bank has cracked or broken, but who’s holding the hammer! My gosh! What’s it going to take before you finally take the hammer away from the left-over kindergartners in the Senate?

What the Obama administration is trying to do is save Wall Street’s biggest bankers’ jobs and the banks’ owners.  If the administration did the obvious thing—what was done in the savings and loan crisis—and went through the banks’ books, wrote down the bad loans, declared the banks insolvent, and took them over, then the rich and powerful bankers and campaign contributors would be out of their jobs and out a lot of money.  They would be replaced by new management, the books straightened out, and the banks then sold off.

That must not happen, so we pore more money down a rat hole.