Just say "No"!

"The White House on Friday insisted it's not trying to take over two ailing financial institutions, even as stocks tumbled again. On Wall Street, talk of nationalization of Citigroup Inc., and Bank of America Corp., prompted investors to continue to balk, worried that the government would have to take control and wipe out shareholders in the process.

Citigroup fell 20 percent, while Bank of America fell 12 percent in afternoon trading but also came off their lowest levels. . . .

When a reporter suggested Gibbs could do that by saying point blank that Obama would never nationalize banks, Gibbs would not make that statement, but emphasized: "I think I was very clear about the system that this country has and will continue to have.""

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics /story/913522.html

If a portion of the market decline of recent days is attributable to fears that Obama will nationalize banks, and Obama doesn't plan to ever nationalize banks, and Obama wants to help reverse the market decline, Obama must simply and clearly say he will never nationalize banks.

If he won't, don't be surprised if people think he will, and act accordingly.


Tags: banks, nationalization (all tags)



Re: Just say "No"!

Gee, it would be so easy to rule it out, and yet they can't seem to rule it out!  Whatever could this mean!

by Steve M 2009-02-21 03:37PM | 0 recs
Rules are rules...

Yet, rules are made to be broken?

Some rules are golden, some are not...

They could say, no, but maybe that would mean yes?

This is quite the dillema!

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-21 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Just say "No"!

Or maybe this is the plan, that they have determined that nationalization is the best course to save the financial sector, and don't care if they weaken these institutions further with their statements.

by animated 2009-02-21 06:57PM | 0 recs
You're right! No More KNM
You really have such a strong masochistic streak showing yourself here each day for beating after beating after... Guess who won:
by iohs2008 2009-02-21 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Just say "No"!

O, Dailykosnomore!

by mikeinsf 2009-02-22 01:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Just say "No"!

Hmmm.... I suppose they could say they weren't going to nationalize (allow to go into receivership) all banks. But that would be a lie since banks go into receivership all the time. Even more so during an economic climate like today's. Of course, if they did say they wouldn't allow the banks to go into receivership then banks that fail would really fail. They would disappear and the money they held would end up where?

by MS01 Indie 2009-02-22 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Just say "No"!


by QTG 2009-02-23 04:30AM | 0 recs
"Nationalization" is Ambiguous

Part of the problem is that 'nationalization' can have many meanings (some would call 25% to 40% ownership a form of nationalization, some would say it means complete ownership, some a controlling interest [50%+ of all stock], and some would picture gov't employees actually exercising day-to-day control of bank activities, not just ownership of stock).

Given the ambiguity of the term, I think the administration wants to (a) not start some sort of panic by throwing the term around and letting it mean something different to everyone, and to some something scary; and (b) not to throw out some definitive statement using an ambiguous term and then being called out as liars by those who would like to see the administration fail and have a different concept of what nationalization means.

Lost in all this (but highlighted in a separate diary) is that there is some sentiment coming from the BANKS themselves, rather than the Obama administration, pushing for a 25% to 40% governmental ownership of bank stocks (Citi, in particular, is throwing this idea around).

So we have on the table "nationalization lite" actually pushed by the private institutions that might be semi-nationalized. Truly bizarre, and reflective of the disastrous financial fix we're in.

by RecoveringRepublican 2009-02-23 08:12AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads