Sen. Graham defends view on nationalizing banks

[dkf]

Graham: Ignoring possibility is irresponsible.
By Jim Morrill
[e-mail]
Posted: Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2009

Despite criticism from fellow Republicans, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina Monday defended his statement that the U.S. should consider nationalizing some banks.

Critics, including the chairman of Charlotte-based Bank of America and many politicians, have slammed the idea. That doesn't bother the outspoken Graham.

“Politicians are worried about words,” he said Monday. “I'm worried about outcomes.”

Graham said the government has already poured billions into banks with little to show for the economy. Bank of America, which has received $45 billion in bailout money, is currently worth $27 billion in market capitalization.

“The truth is we've put more money into the Bank of America than it's worth,” Graham said. “That's not nationalization. That's just stupid.”

Graham broached the idea Sunday on ABC's “This Week.”

“This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable,” he said then, “but I think we have gotten so many toxic assets … that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago (and) no one likes.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/542119.html

Now HE can deal with his irrational brethren. :)

[SharonAnn]

1. I agree! Wow, I actually agree with Lindsey Graham about something.

I think the only answer now is probably to take control so that we can set the terms of operation. Then get them straightened out and sell parts as smaller banks.

Banks obviously need tight regulation and can't be allowed to get "too big too fail". If they ever reach that state, then they're "too big to exist" and we shouldn't permit that.

[dkf]

2. The other article I posted says 90% of deposits are in top 20 banks. Scary.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4af01da7b3cc07f873e69568755082f5.c41&show_article=1

[Taverner]

4. I know, pigs are flying outside I guess!

I agree with him on this...

[Warpy]

yeah, I know, it's embarrassing

Maybe he's been reading the poll numbers for Congressional Repugs and has realized he'd better think about something besides stamping his feet and yelling "NO!"

[ThomWV]

3. I don't understand why all of our banks are not nationalized

For god sakes, are the banks not as imporant as the mail or the coast guard?

[Xipe Totec]

5. Screw the banks, nationalize the CEO bonuses instead n/t

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. What is he up to???????????? nt

[bertman]

7. WHERE is all this frickin money going??!!! I want to know so I can get down near the

bottom with a big bag and git me some.

But seriously, this man is talking sense. We are waaay past nationalization time.

Somebody please get Tim Geithner on the stick.

[depakid]

8. It's always impressive how Republicans manage to coopt the issues

On the one hand- they're not very bright- on the other, they generally manage to play a savvier political game than Democrats do, particularly when it comes to getting their policies enacted.

[Odin2005]

9. I think Hell just froze over.

:wow:

[biopowertoday]

10. That "irrational brethren" would then include Chuck Schumer who

on the same show said NO to the idea of nationalization.



From the OP:

"Now HE can deal with his irrational brethren. :)"

[dkf]

12. Nah, Chuck Schumer is ours to deal with.

I wonder if Chuck is against big bonuses for Wall Street? It sure does help pay those state taxes and makes for larger donations I'm sure.

[ljm2002]

11. Good for him...

...if it takes a Republican Senator to make it something that can be said out loud, so be it. It's long past time that we took that option. It is utterly ludicrous to pour 2, 10 or more times what a company is worth, while getting nothing in return. Nationalize them already. Then we'll have control of their damned bonuses as well.

I'm getting a little of the "toxic assets" phrase though. The reality is that the financiers have been divvying up nonexistent money, giving fraudulent ratings, misleading everyone about what was being bought and sold, and basically playing a gigantic shell game, all the while raking it in for themselves. Perhaps we should just call it what it is: determining how much real value there is in the assets vs. how much is based on fraud. Not "toxic" (which they love to throw around as it implies that it is based on bad, bad Little People who won't pay their debts) -- but "fraudulent" (which more accurately implies that the money men engaged in fraud when they put all these financial instruments together in the first damned place).