iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Schumer: Failed 'Zombie' Banks Should Be Nationalized

First Posted: 03/23/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:05 PM ET

Schumer

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) believes that failed "zombie" banks, no matter what their size, should be taken over by the government, which should then wipe out shareholders, fire management, clean up the banks and quickly resell them into the marketplace. Such a move, he cautioned, should come only if the "stress tests" being conducted by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner determine a bank to be insolvent.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Schumer sought to clarify and elaborate on widely-reported comments he made last Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

During the show, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, turned a few heads by stating that nationalizing the banks should be a policy option on the table.

Responding a few moments later, Schumer said on ABC, "I would not be for nationalizing. I don't think government is good at making these decisions."

But on Friday, Schumer argued that there are good and bad ways to nationalize banks, and that the loaded nature of the term often leads to confusion. "'Nationalization' means many different things to many different people, and somebody needs to clear it up," said Schumer. "We have to distinguish. I like the good and don't like the bad."

Schumer also pressed that nationalization should be a last resort. "It should be the last arrow in the quiver. The danger here is when a government takes [a bank] over, it drives down shares of other banks that might not be in as bad shape," he said. "Let me be clear about this because I want to be very careful: I am not speaking of any specific institution, just a general comment about a general situation. And I don't have -- and please write this -- I don't have any specific institution in mind."

Schumer contrasted nationalizing and holding on to a bank with taking over a failed firm for a temporary period. "Bad nationalization is when the government takes over these institutions and runs them for a long period of time. I don't think this is a good idea. I know President Obama doesn't and I don't think most Americans do," he said.

"The government is not good at making these decisions and managing assets in general. It's a different way of thinking in government. The government bureaucrats make for bad bankers and you'd probably end up making it worse," he said.

A second problem with 'bad nationalization,' he said, is that it concentrates too much power in the hands of government.

"There's a real danger of crony capitalism," he said. "Eisenhower himself warned of the military-industrial complex. If the banks were nationalized in the way we're talking, the bad way, you could end up having a military-industrial-financial complex that could threaten, in some ways, our freedom."

That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't take over failed banks -- even large ones -- he said.

"There is a good type of nationalization. I think that the [Treasury] Secretary was wise to do these stress tests," he said. "They're going to find some banks that are hopeless, that are zombie banks."

Those zombie banks, once discovered, he said, should be nationalized.

"Instead of keeping them alive for a long time," he said, "I do agree with people like Roubini or Mishkin -- and I think people would support this -- that the government should come in. And what the government would do would be: wipe out the shareholders, put in new management -- wipe out the old management and put in new management -- and then let the bank run sort of independently without day-to-day government intervention."

(Schumer is referring to economist Nouriel Roubini, who has called for nationalization, and Frederic Mishkin, a former member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors.)

"This is not that different than what the FDIC is doing in certain places," he said. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has taken over a number of banks, guaranteed the deposits and begun the process of cleaning their balance sheets to prepare to reopen them as private institutions.

Earlier Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the banking committee, made similar remarks on Bloomberg TV.

Schumer said that several conditions applied to his support of nationalization. "Government ownership should be brief. We should try to sell the cleaned up bank quickly," he said. "And second, for whatever time the government owns the institution, it shouldn't be running it day to day because of the dangers I cited before."

Schumer was asked if there are any financial institutions that are too large for a government takeover. He said that there are not.

"I don't think this is a question of size. This is a question of viability. There may be some small and some big that are zombies, basically, that can't really be saved and you just come clean," he said. "It should be regarded as a last resort, but a necessary resort, for some of the worst institutions and better than sort of a death of a thousand cuts for these institutions -- where you just keep pumping money in, they stabilize for awhile, get worse, etc."

Schumer said that the stress test proposed by Secretary Geithner, aimed at determining which banks are solvent, should be thorough. Because so many mortgages have been packaged together and sold by the originating institution, many are now divorced from the documentation that would be needed to determine their value.

"I think the Treasury has the ability to get at all the documents and the banks themselves have the right to those documents and they can request them from the originators," he said. The test, he said is "supposed to be relatively short. It may not be days, but a month or two."

If nationalization does become necessary, said Schumer, a new term may be needed to distinguish it from "bad nationalization."

"It's a good idea to have a different term," he said when told that Huffington Post readers had been proposing new names.

Read a list of their suggestions, he gave the thumbs-up to "detoxification."

"Of the ones I've heard, that's the best one so far," he said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) believes that failed "zombie" banks, no matter what their size, should be taken over by the government, which should then wipe out shareholders, fire management, clean up...
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) believes that failed "zombie" banks, no matter what their size, should be taken over by the government, which should then wipe out shareholders, fire management, clean up...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,589
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (24 total)
photo
phylliscooper1
still trying to figure it all out - except math
11:18 PM on 02/22/2009
Someone please explain to me plain English how a bank can loose money. They charge for most of their services, take in other people's money and loan it out at an interest rate. When they borrow money, they loan it out at a higher interest rate. If the bank has been in business for 10 to 20 years, even if it a local hometown bank, shouldn't there be enough in the coffers to cover downturns and hard times. The rules of compounding interest would apply to a banks savings too, right?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
12:20 PM on 02/23/2009
FACT: Banks lost money becasue the REagan / Bush trickle down economics & deregulation policies gave free reign to banks / lenders / Wall ST to do as they pleased. SO they packaged low quality mortgages as' mortgage securties' They sold them on Wall ST.and made tons of money. When the bad loans defaulted- as could have been predicted, the banks were forced to take these homes back- they flooding the markets and selling the homes very cheaply. That lowered home values in that area. It spread all over the US. That was the ' perfect storm ' that led to this huge crisis. Wall ST bankers extreme greed combined with lack of common sense regulations. Yet the GOP acts like they had no clue-what caused all this. OR they ty to blame Obama. If we are dumb enought to believe that- then we deserve bad govt. But this election proved that voters are fed up with Bush / Reagan policies that crushed our markets. SO that guy ranting on Wall st needs to tell THE WHOLE STORY.
09:47 AM on 02/24/2009
Why should anyone tell you how the Banks lose money. Banks in the USA operate automously and answer to no one. Banks say and do what ever they want. Didn't you get the message when the Congress of the United States state "they would ASK the banks to start lending money". Do your research banks set their own rules,Congress is there to get the financial drippings, like Senator Dodd and his dream morgage rate with Countrywide.
The Office Of Thrift Supervision stated in writing on 12-16-2006" That there are no Federal Consumer Banking Regulations". That means you and I have no rights. The Banks are not afraid of any consumer reprisal because Consumers have no rights.
Do the research.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
01:09 PM on 02/23/2009
Bankers lost $$$ becasue of Bush / Reagan policy of deregulation. That allowed the banks to 'invest ' in very high risk mortage securities-that went bad. THat made homes values plunge as well-since banks were seeling the homes cheap-that brough home prices way down.
11:43 AM on 02/22/2009
Has some zombie eaten Chuck Schumers brain? The banks must really be in trouble if Schumer think we should nationalize the banks. We are talking about the same Senator Schumer that would kick his mom out of the way to get to a camera and microphone or a bankers butt to kiss it.

Back to my rant. Yes, Senator Schumer we need to look at these zombie banks. You might want to start with Citibank and Bof A since they are the ones most likely to fail and take us down. A small bank will not be as dangerous as a big bank. But Senator Schumer I would guess you are not talking about the big banks, you are looking to sell off the little banks to the big banks.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
12:10 PM on 02/22/2009
Yep thats what they do- big banks buy little banks ( with help from taxpayers ) Then the big banks get way 'too big to fail ' as you said like- B.o.A. & CiTIBANK. ANd is Chase going to be in there as well ? What BS. No one else will take their ' Toxic ' assets. Those responsible Must ADMIT BLAME. so it will not happen again. We can't sweep it under the rug any more.. No so called expert saw thist coming- and if someone did- they should have shouted it from the roof tops.
05:37 PM on 02/22/2009
Economist Nouriel Roubini saw it coming and did tell everybody. They ignored him as they would any one who disagreed with the government. Now Roubini is called a negative doomsday person because he states that the banks are insolvent. Now other
economists are stating that the banking system is insolvent.
The question is what did the banks do with the money? You are talking about trillions of dollars not accounted for and Congress has not asked who is accountable.
The citizens of the USA have got to ask who stole and cheated us out of our way of life.

Why haven't these people been stripped of their assets like millions and millions of Americans who have been stripped of their assets by foreclosures. It is ironic that the banks who stripped the assets of Americans through foreclosure are the same people that have not told us what they have done with trillions of dollars that have disappeared from the economy. The Congress in turn have given the banks billions and billions of dollars.

I would bet George Bush's 2 million dollar house that the Congress won't even investigate
the missing money because some of them benefitted from this money crisis.

Obama has not got a chance against these professional politicians who cheat the system for their own personal interest. The Congress cannot afford to change the system as it would bring to light what has been going on for years.
photo
speakingtruth2power
Not motivated by fear & loathing
10:53 AM on 02/22/2009
Why should we only get the failed ones? The stinking banks and their whores at the Fed,

which is not part of our government, should all be nationalized. The oil industry should be

as well along with the Phama/Insurance crooks who have ruined our medical institutions.
09:33 AM on 02/22/2009
Who was George Buskwacker referring to when he used the phrase "Evil Doers"
Was it the Banks,Congress or Wallstreet?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
12:01 PM on 02/22/2009
1. Super Greedy bankers 2. Wall ST 3. Those in govt who went along with the GOP policies of deregulation. They are all "evil doers". ADD to that- all Madoff type crooks. The LOVE OF MONEY
( and power ) is the root of all evil. But- this is my fantasy: " Bush / Cheney / Bank CEO's, ALL go on TV and APOLOGIZE to the nation for the mess they left us. And give us much of the money back ! And do community service ! Hey..I told you - it was a fantasy. I will never trust anything Wall ST -the GOP- or fat cat bankers say- since most have no conscience. I said most- not all-I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that there may be a few ' good ones ' out there.
05:16 AM on 02/22/2009
The zombie banks.

Thanks for the laugh Chuck.

It seems to me that you are part of the problem as well.

We need all you politicians to understand that after all this crap you have been puting us through, we need your representation to help stop the credit companies. The same ones that have benefited from the TARP money, to lower these damm credit fees and penalties.

It's an outrage for this practice of receiving money at 5-7% and passing the buck to the american consumers are 18-28%. To me that is a better return than all these ponzi schemes that are being found.

Fight and spread the word. Our voice needs to be heard today - http://www.TheCreditCardAct.com
05:53 AM on 02/22/2009
Have Obama verify if anyone in the Senate or Congress has received contributions from any homebuilder, mortgage broker or wall steet firm and have them disqualified from any discussion on future regulation..

You'd think Schumer just walked out of a 1978 Elton John concert with those glasses. Oh wait, he was in charge of regulating Wall Street for the last ten years. Way to go Chuck. Now is the time to act brave. Can we verify the campaign contributions given to the house and senate banking committee members on both sides of the aisle. Let's pretend we're outraged and go for bailing out the banks in private. DIsgusting. An embarrassment to all Americans. I abhor this behavior.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
12:29 PM on 02/22/2009
MIke Yes- We need to have - once againa usury law- which limits what credit card CO's charge. The GOP never cared about consumers being gouged. Consumers HAVE TO STOP CHARGING STUFF. Amercians have spent and spent without regard to how much it is really costing them- with interest fees. Folks used to only use credit for a home & a car- & had to have a down payment. ! Our country uses the Communist CHINA CHARGE & WE HAVE USED OUR HOMES AS ATM 's. Kids get so many gifts that they are 'unimpressed' with anything. Kids used to be so excited to get that special gift.- it meant a lot more to them. We are doing a great disservice to our kids when we over buy. Nothing is special anymore.-just discarded or broken- and we go out and get them another one ! Don't we want our kids to grow up with ' character any more ? Ok I'm off my soap box now.
10:40 PM on 02/21/2009
I can't believe Christopher Dodd, the Banking Committe Chairman is even allowed in the conversation. All these times as Chair of Banking Regulations, he failed to see what was happening with the sub-primes being bundled and swapped, collateralized into toxic instruments causing the economic meltdown.

The core of our economic and financial systems are archaic. They need to be re-structured to the core. Consolidating all these toxic assets under a cohesive Re-structuring Program . . . . . . . . the title is really irrelevant. But if you have to christened it, I prefer: Consolidated Federal Assistance Re-structuring Program.

To begin, Geithner, Pelosi, Dodd, Franks should be all removed.
05:56 PM on 02/22/2009
I agree Strangerinthe night.
Do the research:
Chris Dodd got a favorable mortgage rate ( a rate that you and I can only dream about) from Countrywide Mortgage, a thrift bank that Dodd oversees through its sham regulator the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Barney Frank says one thing to the American Citizens and craps on us behind our backs.This two faced politician needs to have the banks take his house so that he can know as a US citizen you have absolutely no right to fight your foreclosure within the same regulatory system that the banks lend its mortgage money. Congress does not pass legislation that restricts a banks mortgage loan activities.
Geithner is a dear close friend to the banks. He is a bank buddy.
Pelosi is also two faced. She tells us one thing and then does another. She does not back up what she says.
Congress is a way of life to become a millionaire at the expense of the American people.
We are out here living the hell that Congress helped to create and they give themselves a payraise.
I hope they choke on their own political vomit.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
01:06 PM on 02/23/2009
Yep Dodd & Frank DID fall asleep at the swirch on the banking commitee- and need to be
' exposed' for that. .But they did NOT cause this crisis. Reagan / Bush policies of deregulation and trickle down and giving free reign to Wall St / bankers did. I will keep saying this - since so many are not aware of the REAL CAUSE of this huge mess thats been dumped into Obama's lap. There is so much mis-information and half truths going around- it's crazy. Limbaugh / Hannity / Coultour are major causes of this. Folks just believe it all and never check the facts. Thats why we had the last 8 + years that brought us to disaster. Selfish greedy no conscience fat cats & Madoff types.. .oh yes he's not the only one. He just got caught. Stay tuned for more..
06:57 PM on 02/21/2009
I think zombie banks should take over the government.....oops..I forgot.....they already have.
04:39 PM on 02/21/2009
This financial crisis is complicated beyond words but those who are closest to it and those who study this kind of thing everyday, should be respected for their efforts on behalf of the entire country. It is sad that so many, have a casual atitiude about it and see it as an opportunity to play politics. I have confidence in President Obama and his administration and the Democratic party. I do believe they are searching for the best possible solutions to all these problems and I thank that little band of Republicans who showed courage and joined in voting for the recovery package. As the country settles into accepting the reality of our dilemma, it will be more clear that President Obama is a good leader. He is not perfect and he cannot offer us a perfect plan but he is doing his best and that is all he can do.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
05:57 PM on 02/21/2009
I sure hope you're right ! I also think OBama is doing a very good job. But I really worry about the 'powerful money interests ' who CONTROL this country- and what they will stoop to in order to crush Obama. Limbaugh is one of the 'mouths' that spread mis-information- and his ill informed ' followers ' haven't a clue- that he does not speak the truth. While Rush laughs
all the way to the bank. These folks will do whatever it takes. They had power too long and they want it back in the WORST WAY ! and I mean worst way !
03:55 PM on 02/21/2009
Andrew Jackson and Lincoln had it correct. Does President Obama have the courage to follow suit? I hope so for all our sakes. However, he seems to be on track for destroying our national boundaries and rendering us one country from Chile to Alaska... as the people in control of the Federal Reserve desire. The Federal Reserve needs to be destroyed and the banks need to be allowed to fail. Could our president please quit trying to bail out banks and bankrupting our country at the behest of the Federal Reserve? Obama not only needs to allow banks to fail, he needs to nationalize the Federal Reserve.

Just a View from My Trailer Park. Thank you for letting me play.
MJ Richards
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
12:50 PM on 02/22/2009
MC Recall that- NAFTA was passed years ago-that was what started what you World Govt-
this is NOT an Obama creation. He 's been office 34 days and done a lot of good. So lets not jump to conclusions- wait and see what develops over the next 2 years- then we can make a fair judgement of the results. That seems sensible to me. .
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
msjimmied
03:46 PM on 02/21/2009
And while they toy with the idea, the banking sector stocks are at death's door. There is more than one way to create a run on a bank or short the stock, but this from the politicians is not in the best interest of an institutions they are trying to help.
04:06 PM on 02/21/2009
umm are you blaming the government for the banks being insolvent? Aren't the markets never 'wrong' if stocks are nearly worthless; it's cos shareholder equity is nearly wiped out already; aka essentially insolvent, bankrupt institutions. This isn't the govs fault.
09:17 PM on 02/21/2009
The government through its regulators The OCC,The OTS and The SEC had the repsponsibility to supervise,regulate and enforce the rules but failed to do so.
The Congess had the responsibility of oversight but did not do their job.
In other wards we have a group of rich,greedy evil people whose only goal is their own self interests.
CarmanK
democrat, retired tax acct
12:50 AM on 02/22/2009
The banksters gorged themselves for years under de-regulation. We don't need to nationalize, we need to regulate, regulate and more. Right now, the banks are begging for taxpayer bail outs and getting it, while the banksters are raising credit card fees and finance charges to usurious rates. The banking committee and the fed should be really outraged at the audacity and blatant disregard the banksters have for the financial security of the nation. The banksters pulled a 9/11 attack on the US financial systems. Congress needs to get a lot tougher on these loan sharks. What good is $65.00 a pay check mean, if the banks are going to increase fees to absorb the stim dollars. Also, did you hear that people on unemployment are being charged outrageous fees on use of "bank debit cards" issued by state unemployment offices. How low can they get before Congress steps up?? President Obama needs to call for the stop to banksterism, that rhymes with gangsterism which is also known as loan sharking. Usury is Immoral, American banks cannot be allowed to continue their immoral business practices while we are trying to restore our image and integrity around the world. And as far as the banking brain drain, "because they can't pay retention bonuses", I put forth, if the bankers went to China, India, Japan and fleeced their people, they would be hanged. After all those countries put a lot of stock in "honor".
10:04 AM on 02/22/2009
Indeed! Regulate! Regulate! Regulate now!

Have not banks already proven their idiocy?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
12:59 PM on 02/22/2009
True- $65. is not a lot of money. But with the financial shape the GOP left us in- we are BROKE Unemployment will be extended- millions of homeowners hellped- no not everyone. But- its the most that can be done-for now. As I keep saying- Its been 34 days-can we give it 18-25 months to see where we're at then. If some of the bleeding can be stopped- that may be the best anyone can do for now. It took 25 + years to get here.-since Reagan-its going to TAKE TIME- TO IMPROVE. Obama has to fight the GOP every s tep of the way. The GOP _ The party of NO- but with no real answers- except more and more tax cuts. After many years of lying down for Bush's spending spree- NOW all of a suddden- GOP is worried about spending !! Hello- is anyone dumb enough to buy that line ? Oh I forgot- the Limbaugh devotees.
03:09 PM on 02/21/2009
people are complicating this beyond necesity. This is the only "stress test" that needs to be done: take back the bailout money. If the financial institution cannot meet its short-term liabilities (i.e. cannot make the credit payments, plus principle due on short term debt) creditors will demand they sell assets. Banks will sell assets and shrink their balance sheets to acceptable sizes. IF the bank cannot still, after selling its short term assets, meet its obligations; it will technically be bankrupt. OR if its total net worth, asset - liabilities is negative; it is insolvent and should be allowed to fail..

I do not see why the american taxpayer must "invest" in these insolvent firms when other private investors are unwilling to do so -- and they are unwilling to do so for good reason: the banks are insolvent! All the money we put in now goes to bail out creditors and shareholders. if the bank is insolvent, shareholders and debtors deserve to get wiped out....i feel very bad for the pension people; lucky the Dem fought to save social security, for now.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
05:38 PM on 02/21/2009
Correct It is NOT the govt's fault. Taxpayers are being used as chumps- to ' bail out ' greedy banks that caused their own ruin. GOP policies allowed it to happen. This does not feel like an INVESTMENT AT ALL. The weakest of the banks should go bankrupt. Investors in those bank will lose all- thats the way the stock market is supposed to act. Stocks are a gamble- always have been. Can someone tell me this ' Do we have any ownership or equity position in these banks we are bailing out ? I'm livid that Obama is being left with this horrible crisis-and as much as he tries- if something goes wrong- he will get ALL THE blame and the GOP will use it against him. But I will NOT buy it. THERE IS no FAIRNESS IN THIS WHOLE STINKIN MESS.
Bush / Cheney/ Reagan the greedy fat cats that made this all happen, should be made to publically accept blame !
02:43 PM on 02/21/2009
And Congress was heard to say to the homeowner: "We will huff and we will puff until we blow your house down."

An excerpt from the 3 Little Greedy pigs
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
djgonebad
02:14 PM on 02/21/2009
The United States finanical institutions where teenagers in their parent's liquor cabinet; didn't McBush tell us Wall Street was drunk? It was the only thing he said truthful in 8-years.

Because of this 8-year "DRINKING BINGE", the "Hang-Over" is going to be unpleasant, but we'll get through it. Most importantly, the CEO's, who caused much of this mess, need to be held responsible and "Nationalization" is the beginning of needed "ACCOUNTABILITY". The only thing is- who's going to determine what "ZOMBIE" banks are going to be "killed-off" and what ones are worth saving. That is the scary part of this equation, because everyone (401k's, pensions, charity organizations, etc. etc.) seems to have ties in these huge, failing economic institutions.

Our tax-dollars are their "life-line" and if they don't want to play ball, they can find employment elsewhere (good luck with that). WE OWE THEM NOTHING, BUT REGULATION; WITHOUT IT, WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST BURN THE CASH UP AND START FROM THE BOTTOM.

We need, good jobs; lower interest rates on mortgages; higher taxes for the rich (who produce nothing, but make fortunes sitting pool-side, trading stocks); and focused attention towrads raising the standards of education and health-care in our country.

A bottom-up economy is the only thing that will cure our country; forget about the "TRICLE-DOWN" BULL$#!T of the lst 30+ years; IT OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T WORK, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SYSTEM IS LEFT TO THEIR OWN GREEDY DEVICES.
03:16 PM on 02/21/2009
I agree; but nationalization need not mean having to "play ball" with the gov...

i think what needs to happen is: insolvent banks get their shareholder wiped out, as this is the norm in the free market. Then, a fair valuation of all toxic assets on the balance sheet will help us determine the true worth, Gov. "recapitalizes" ie invests in the banks; but lets them run the day to day business; with gov. only determining compensation guidelines for top execs (essentially, should get paid gov. wages)

Then....what's our exit strategy? Does the taxpayer sell back the company for a profit when the economy picks up...what i;m scared of is a fire sale later down the line to private equity interests..and what we will end up with is banks in very concentrated hands...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
djgonebad
03:26 PM on 02/21/2009
That's the responsibility needed to guide us out of the woods. We cannot let a concentration of power start this over again, once we see a clearing.

Can't we find economic leaders without the GREED GENE? Or, is it a prerequisite for financial types and the occupations they desire to hold?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
05:42 PM on 02/21/2009
Gjg Makes sense- Deregulation & trickle down did cause this mess. My fear is the GOP blames OBama for any problems and they get elected again in 2010 - 2012. WE can't take any more of their greed. No matter what happens - I will not vote GOP in the next 2 elections- or at all.
10:54 AM on 02/21/2009
When can we get serious and start inflating our worthless Reichsmarks, er, dollars toward something that will show a return for the _people_? I thought you handled a zombie with a bullet to the brain and burial. Why are we channeling hundreds of billions at a time to the people who sponsored the worst excesses of irresponsibility in exchange for nothing except the experience of the inflation to follow? If we want to bail out banks, shouldn't we bail out the ones that are still at least surviving?
03:26 PM on 02/21/2009
smchris, essentially, that is what a "nationalization" aka "detoxification" will do:
(1) it will "wipe" out the shareholders..i.e. the people who put their capital on the line and made risky bets. (2) the taxpayer "recapitalizes" the banks via pumping cash in to make them solvent again; essentially becoming the new shareholders

(If private shareholders themselves pumped in fresh equity capital to the banks, the US gov wouldn't need to..but of course no one wants to because all private equity parties know that the banks are insolvent)...

Essentially this detoxification of the banks is a bailout of credit interest/lenders. BUT this is important to maintain the credit flowing in the system and prevent the "lending freeze" we saw in 2007 -2008. The question is: will the taxpayer profit in the end? How will they back these banks when after they strengthen the balance sheets? What will be the Govs return on investment? How will they decide who to sell to? Will it be a public offering or private placement? wHO will profit from later privatization ? Those are the important questions later..as for now..no question that shareholders in insolvent banks should be wiped out;
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
05:45 PM on 02/21/2009
Right on ! Who else but taxpayers would be asked to take on ' toxic assetts ' It's insanity !
10:39 AM on 02/21/2009
Considering that Schumer told wall street not to worry "we'll take care of it" when the gov't was trying to regulate it, he should give up his life saving along with the rest of us who are watching their nest eggs disappear. SCHUMER SHOULD BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!