It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Will United States be forced to nationalize banks?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:48 AM

Will United States be forced to nationalize banks?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. government's latest bank rescue, this time a multi-billion dollar lifeline handed to Bank of America, has led to more talk of what once would have been unthinkable -- European-style nationalization of major American banks.

Few see the government nationalizing the entire banking system the way Sweden did in the 1990s, but the U.S. is growing more willing to put significant pressure on the largest banks.

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:48 AM
My problem with this whole mess is this little tidbit thrown into this article. On page two:

Nationalizing just one of JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America Corp, or Citigroup, which together have about half the assets in the banking system, would double the Federal Reserve's balance sheet instantly.

Since when is the Federal Reserve ,a privately owned By European bankers, bank, our Governement? I can understand that they print OUR money and charge us intrest on every dollar. But since when do they hold credence over our decisions in saving our banking industry?

Now at the G7 Summit in New York last year Bush and Co. did give the European bank regulators authority over OUR rules and regs. That included penalties etc. But since when does the balance sheet of the Rockerfellas dictate our policy and decisions? Was this also part of the rules and regs fiasco that Bush and Co. put in place? I followed it closely and don't remember reading anything of the sort. Could it be that the European banks don't want them to allow it to happen. After all if it wasn't for the Federal Reserve and their fiat money we would still be on the monetary system that JFK was setting up that was backed by silver.
If you ask me I think sticking it to them and doubling their balance sheet as they have done to every American over the last 2 years is a good idea! Mabe then they to would be forced out of business and leave once and for all. I am sure that the AMERICANS working there could run the money press.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:50 AM
Aparently the author of your article doesn't realize that we already have nationalized the banks.

By trading preferred stock for bailout funds, we have already in essence Nationalized the banks

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by redhatty

In essense BUT the Gov does not "yet" have enough of a controling amount to completely take over. My problem is this...what does the Federal Reserve a PRIVATELY owned bank have to do with our decsions about who to save and who to let fall? What it isnt okay for them to get it stuck to them like the rest of us? is my point

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by xoxo stacie
In essense BUT the Gov does not "yet" have enough of a controling amount to completely take over.

They do now, after the bailout. You can not get a loan for a house with out the governments approval. If Im not mistaken, the bailout for the auto industry - mainly GM and Chrystler as Ford said no thanks - handed over controll to the government.

The government now decides who gets money and who does not. That in turns decides who gets to work and who gets to be unemployed. What company gets to succeed and who has to close their doors.

That IS enough controll to completely take over.

My problem is this...what does the Federal Reserve a PRIVATELY owned bank have to do with our decsions about who to save and who to let fall? What it isnt okay for them to get it stuck to them like the rest of us? is my point

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank that works for the Government.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by mrsdudara]

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by xoxo stacie

We here at ATS already know that the FED is unconstitutional as an entity to begin with, but it's here and gaining more and more power over everything.

Ben Bernanke is diligently following his thesis Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here to the detriment of us all.

Also, we DO NOT KNOW how much of a share the US holds now, as the FED refuses to release that information to the public still.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:23 AM
reply to post by redhatty

Hmm that makes me wonder if perhaps the other ten or so "loan" programs set into action before the major "bailout" where controled by the FR.... True they did stop reporting in Nov when everyone found out it was actually close to 3 trill. (2.7 trill I think, of all programs including the one announced to the public)

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:36 AM
I am again with redhatty on this, I think we are well on our way to nationalized banks with all the money we have thrown at them. They are now beholding to the government so anything more is merely a formality.....correct????

I wish I had been more on keeping up with things like this when the Fed got its start, I was just becoming aware at that point and still had total faith in the good old US of A.

I would like to hear what you people think would have been the result if the banks and wall street had been allowed to sink or swim. I am no economist but it seems to me it would be better to allow the natural weeding of what is not working than to prop up a failing system......with trillions of dollars.

Keep this in mind, one trillion seconds ago it was nearly 30,000 BC! We talk about billions and trillions now like we used to talk about thousands and millions. I think we are screwed personally.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:36 AM
I am starting to see a trend I was poopoo'd for bringing up last year. Frankly it is getting me to worrying.... this from another rueters article.

Most attention was on the FTSE 100 index of leading British shares, which was down 35.13 points, or 0.9 percent, at 4,111.93, after the British government said it would be creating a progam to insure bank loans in the hope that the banks will start lending again.

The relatively modest drops in three stock markets masked big declines in the share prices of some of the continent's biggest banks. In Germany, Deutsche Bank AG sank 10 percent while Commerzbank AG was 8 percent lower.

The biggest concerns focused on Britain, where Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC plunged 60 percent after it said it would likely post a 2008 loss of 28 billion pounds ($41.3 billion), which would be the biggest loss ever reported by a British company. Shares traded at only 20 pence (29 U.S. cents) a share. (its actually at 68.88%)

It would seem that now we have the inageration tomarrow everyone is running for the nearest exit.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:49 AM
It has already begun.
Obama team weighs government bank to ease crisis

Next step the "Amero"
Then the Unified World Banking System.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:50 AM
reply to post by xoxo stacie

Don't forget too that BOTH Britain and The US plan to create "Bad Banks"

Britain is talking about insuring the bad assets and The US is "mulling over" the idea too

In both nations it leaves the average person holding the bag on the costs, no matter how they try to sugar-coat it

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:57 AM
I can totally see that one. But I truely believe that they created and plann"ed" for the bad banks. In essence leaving only the totally gov run banks as a 2 or 3 mabe...?

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by mrsdudara

"The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank that works for the Government."

Are you sure about that? I see it as the other way around the way things are going. The Government works for them and what they want. Why else would we have taxes and interest?

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:05 AM

Very good. Let me rephrase that to - They are supposed to be.

I am holding hope though. There are enough Americans who are not for this, and who are willing to stand up and fight against it.

Where as it might all be part of the plan, I hold hope that it will not be part of reality.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:00 AM
The Federal Reserve is not a bank.

It's a banking system.

It's a systemic overlay that acts as a control which ties in the 12 regional banks and many other private banks.

It's a government system (chairman, board of governors, directors, etc..) with private components (the private banks that become tied into the government system thereby melding them into the government infrastructure and operations).

Hell, you people are so dense that if the banking system where completely nationalized, you'd ignore the truth that is staring you in the face and still yell out to the heavens that it's a private bank.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:29 AM
"Federal Reserve bank
Function: noun
Date: 1914
: one of 12 reserve banks set up under the Federal Reserve Act to hold reserves and discount commercial paper for affiliated banks in their respective districts."

": Federal Reserve System
Function: noun
Date: 1919
: the central banking system of the United States consisting of 12 districts with a Federal Reserve bank in the principal commercial city of each district."

So, it`s not a bank, right? Strange, it seems to say it is here.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by FiatLux]

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:38 AM
This Banking Crisis is going to end badly...if the Gov Nationalizes the Banks it will paste Trillions on their debt balance sheets...foreign bond holders will start calling in their loans...Gov/Fed can't cover it...BAM

I think this is why the Gov/Fed is so reluctant to do it.

All this reminds me of old quotes from Jefferson/Jackson/Adams/ect about how Bankers would be the ruin of the World.

[edit on 1/19/2009 by Hx3_1963]

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:39 AM
the proposal is already in the works:

US Proposes Overhaul of Banking System
March 31, 2008

In what is being hailed as the largest regulatory change in the US banking system since the great depression, Treasury Secretary Paulson presented a sweeping proposal today detailing the planned changes. In order to properly regulate the financial stability of the US as a whole, ...

the Fed should take a more proactive approach to managing the liquidity and leverage of US financial institutions.

The sweeping plan has yet to be set into place by congress, and is expected to undergo intense scrutiny before it is adopted.

Note the last underlined words ...'before it is adopted'
like it's a foregone conclusion!

having a stake in the Preferred Shares of banks, means that the Treasury
cannot vote or have a say in the direction the bank board & stockowners
want to take the bank.

so its not really 'nationalized',
but the influence the Treasury & by regulation the Fed. have over the banking corporations rules, makes those bailed-out banks effectively wrapped in a fascist operating model.

a plain-vanilla banking system should be started with the TARP funds,
to create banks which are prohibited from investment activity such as creating or trading in derivatives and other Debt-Claim instruments...
that activity is only for Investment Banks, or should have been,
and the risk taking investor class...

the mom-&-pop, with checking accounts and savings accounts, lay-away-plans are all the plain-vannilla/brown-paper-wrapper 'Banks' should be
allowed to provide....

perhaps maybe being allowed to seek a 'courtesy fee' as a financial reference
when that mom-&-pop apply for a mortgage with a different provider,
as the Banks i envision could not be a source for mortgages themselves...
that would be left up to a 'co-op' or 'S&L' would be a mortgage source and mortgage trader.

it gets waaaay to complicated for a 1 paragraph synopsis, thanks

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:07 PM

WASHINGTON: Last fall, as Federal Reserve and Treasury Department officials rode to the rescue of one financial institution after another, they took great pains to avoid doing anything that smacked of nationalizing banks.

They may no longer have that luxury. With two of the nation's largest banks buckling under yet another round of huge losses, the incoming administration of Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve are suddenly dealing with banks that are "too big to fail" and yet unable to function as the sinking economy erodes their capital.

Particularly in the case of Citigroup, the losses have become so large that they make it almost mathematically impossible for the government to inject enough capital without taking a majority stake or at least squeezing out existing shareholders.

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:16 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in