Obama's Socalist Agenda In Action!

MMBinNC's picture
Rank: Neanderthal | 2,146

B. Hussien Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country's banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

The Dems wanted the taxpayers to "get something back" for the original TARP bailout and this resulted in government recieving an equity stake. But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. But with this recent change, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions.Whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That's called socialism.

With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common -- except to advance the socialist agenda of this administration.

Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial "stress test."

But this isn't important, let's think like the NY Times...poor polo ponies....drink the Kool-Aid and forget.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/us-ma...

Comments (8)

Apr 23, 2009

Comrade Obama is our leader no dissent is tolerable.
This is soon going to be the way things are done. People thought the Bush Administration infringed on the people's rights but I don't like the looks of the current administration.

Apr 23, 2009

B. HUSSIEN Obama? lol

Apr 23, 2009

There is a very real fear among very high ranking individuals at the banks that Obama is simply looking to bring as much power as possible to the government. I personally feel rather helpless as I watch the administration enact laws that I believe will cause long-term harm to the nation. Unfortunately, the U.K. just increased the tax on the wealthy from 45% to 50%, so I'm running out of potential places to go!

~~~~~~~~~~~
CompBanker

Apr 23, 2009
CompBanker:

There is a very real fear among very high ranking individuals at the banks that Obama is simply looking to bring as much power as possible to the government. I personally feel rather helpless as I watch the administration enact laws that I believe will cause long-term harm to the nation. Unfortunately, the U.K. just increased the tax on the wealthy from 45% to 50%, so I'm running out of potential places to go!

~~~~~~~~~~~
CompBanker

Hong Kong, Singapore tax less than 15% and Dubai taxes at 0%. Those are the places to be I guess.

Apr 23, 2009

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

Did El Rushbo tell you this or Hannity? The point of the conversion is to enhance the banks' capital ratios and suspend the preferred dividend requirement. Further, I'm pretty sure the conversion will not give the government majority control (i.e. >51% ownership) over the common shares.

Don't forget that several, if not a majority, of these banks would be completely insolvent without the government's aid. If you want truly laissez-faire capitalism then a majority of banks would be BANKRUPT. Refer to 1929 to see what effect this has on the economy.

Learn More

7,548 questions across 469 investment banks. The WSO Investment Banking Interview Prep Course has everything you'll ever need to start your career on Wall Street. Technical, Behavioral and Networking Courses + 2 Bonus Modules. Learn more.

Apr 23, 2009
models_and_bottles:

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

Did El Rushbo tell you this or Hannity? The point of the conversion is to enhance the banks' capital ratios and suspend the preferred dividend requirement. Further, I'm pretty sure the conversion will not give the government majority control (i.e. >51% ownership) over the common shares.

Don't forget that several, if not a majority, of these banks would be completely insolvent without the government's aid. If you want truly laissez-faire capitalism then a majority of banks would be BANKRUPT. Refer to 1929 to see what effect this has on the economy.

Looks like someone's been drinking the kool-aid

Apr 23, 2009

Sure, taking a laissez-faire attitude towards 1929 would have been terrible, but there is a lot of evidence that the crisis of 1929 and subsequently the depression was the result of prior government actions. Government is a self-perpetuating, integral part of the economy once it is established (whether for better or for worse, I say worse).

Hoover and the so-called "forgotten presidents" actually passed a bunch of ultimately game-changing pieces of legislation. The latter 19th century was an unparalleled period of relative prosperity and lacked the grinding poverty that emerged following government tariffs and "reforms".

Apr 23, 2009
Comment