It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US considering taking ownership stake in BANKS

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

US considering taking ownership stakes in BANKS


www.nytimes.com

Treasury officials say the just-passed $700 billion bailout bill gives them the authority to inject cash directly into banks that request it. such a move would quickly strengthen banks' balance sheets and, officials hope, persuade them to resume lending. In return, the law gives the Treasury the right to take ownwership positiosn in banks, including healthy ones.

The American recapitalization plan, officials say, has emerged as one of the most favored new options being discussed in Washington and on Wall Street.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 9-10-2008 by Agit8dChop]




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
'' including healthy banks ''

Can you believe theyve effectivley allowed the government controlling stakes in the banks?

This is disgusting, there snatching up everything, the government.


Come on people, how much are you simply going to allow them to do before you realised you gave them to much room, and now they own you?

Communism at its highest. All doing it while smiling on the camera telling you its whats needed!


www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I just read the morning newspaper here in the Netherlands and it on the front page says " Nationalization of all Great Banks only option to stop Financial Crisis" . Do they want all banks to fail? My bank isn't doing bad right now but if they keep it up it will fail too. Everyone will be too afraid to put their savings in a privately owned bank and i think that's what their plan is anyway.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
What is scary is the bigger picture, they have closer control with oversight, they can see money move, they can see money move from your employer to you, from you to wherever you spend, don't get me wrong I understand that this has been the case forever, however, I do believe it gets to be a bit more granular at the control and visibility level, it just ties the irs closer to the money everyone has and makes it easier for government get to your money and any or all assets if needed.

I do not know what kind of counsel congress gets or had when formulating this thing, but I do believe that the bill before it became law needed some more legal scrutiny than the rushed legislation it was.

I also think the move that Paulson, former Goldman CEO, picked another crony from his old firm that in years certainly would be considered wet behind the ears to manage the funds of the bailout.

Also can someone explain, "injecting capital" ? as opposed to injecting liquidity? The fed already had the power to inject money, what good was it to give the Treasury Secretary that power.


[edit on 9-10-2008 by phinubian]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I may be wrong but isn't this a good thing?

Wouldn't this mean the government can stop being controlled by the elite families that own the banks and mints?

People like Rockefeller and Rothschild families that have been manipulating governments around the world for ages.

I think thats a first step in pissing on NWO.

Not sure though.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join