What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- existing, on 12/04/2008, -1/+14Add to that AIG, the auto industry...
FTA - "“If fascism means coercive state control over nominally private property, then there is no more chilling sign of creeping fascism in America than government’s encroachment on the lifeblood of the U.S. economy--its financial institutions." ... "The response to the crisis should be to restore freedom and to disentangle government from the economy. Instead, the same mentality and the same central planners that created the financial crisis are being given far wider reign to manipulate and distort markets. We must tell our government to reverse this fascist course--now." - keltin, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7Uh, existing, I believe we've told them loud and clear about this. However, this is not Smith Barney, where, "When The People Talk, the Government Listens."
- existing, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5This is the first article I've found on the current financial crisis that addresses the federal government receiving ownership shares in various industries in return for 'bailout' money (this article regards banking, but it's happening with other industry as well). It was refreshing to find someone addressing the questions I have been asking, while receiving no answers from anyone. I am still wondering how MUCH they are receiving in ownership shares - controlling interest? I therefore had not realized we had been telling anyone about this 'loud and clear'. As far as the government's hearing ability, I don't think they ever do listen to we the people.
- keltin, on 12/04/2008, -2/+9Even the media reported that over 61% of the people (75% in some polls) said they DID NOT want bailouts of various institutions. The reply from Pelosi, Paulson, Bush and Reid was varied, but basically it said, "We know we have to do this, so shut up, People."
Look at the news comments from CNN, FoxNews, CNBC and the Washington Times from back in September. It's there. There was also another quick, but not very well exposed, poll showing the public didn't want the government to buy ownership amounts, OF ANY AMOUNT, of private corps. The media, by this time (Nov), decided not to say squat.- PuterPrsn, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4Amen to that! The whole kit and kaboodle of them need to be ousted from office. They are *supposed* to be elected to represent the will of the people, and they gave not even a nod to what the majority of people wanted done with their tax dollars. Now even our grandchildren will be paying this off - don't expect ANY of the businesses being "bailed out" with "loans" to ever repay the money (and that includes what the auto guys are fixing to get, regardless of what "we, the people" say).
- existing, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1Yes, the media have reported that some don't WANT the bailouts. What I have not heard reported are the CONSEQUENCES of the bailouts, insofar as the government receiving ownership stakes in these various industries. I've wondered aloud, what are we entering into here? Socialism...fascism...a mix, a "third way" perhaps? Clinton always talked about the "third way". In this article, someone has finally addressed this question, calling it fascism. Frankly, I'm surprised more people have NOT picked up on the issue of ownership shares and have NOT been questioning it, in print at least. We don't have cable or satellite and therefore don't get 24 hours news; maybe someone has addressed it there. A family member said they remembered one time only when it was discussed on FOX, wherein it was called socialism.
My next question is does the federal government now have controlling interest in these industries?
- AynRandfan, on 12/04/2008, -2/+2Thanks for posting!
- PuterPrsn, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5How could they force the banks to sign if they weren't asking for a bail-out? There's something missing in this story - there had to be some kind of "stick" being used - what was it?
- AynRandfan, on 12/04/2008, -3/+4guns. Government doesn't ask for favors, it gives you an offer you can't refuse.
- jeffiek, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2I understand you, but most of the world won't. You need to explain yourself.
"guns of government" is not a literal reference to actual violence. It is a reminder that ultimately all government action is backed up by force. Typically, there are more indirect, but just as powerful, ways for the government to get what it wants. For instance, the legal system.
There are more financial regulations than you can count. It's guaranteed that a case can be brought to court against any bank. Guilt or innocence won't matter, the bank will die in the fight, financially drained. The government has far more resources. In today's environment, the indictment alone would cause a bank run ending in the bank's collapse.
What you have done is "cut to the chase" when the audience doesn't understand the plot. It confuses them. Responding to a government indictment is so normal that most people have forgotten that the only reason to show up in court is that ultimately the government does have the guns to make you show up.
The proximate reason is the court system, the ultimate reason is force - the "guns".
It's not surprising that banks would sign even if they didn't want to. What would you do in the face of such a powerful adversary?
- jeffiek, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2I understand you, but most of the world won't. You need to explain yourself.
- AynRandfan, on 12/04/2008, -3/+4guns. Government doesn't ask for favors, it gives you an offer you can't refuse.
- Striker101, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4Quoted by Author: “The chief executives of the nine largest banks in the United States . . . were each handed a one-page document that said they agreed to sell shares to the government, then Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said they must sign it before they left. . . . ‘It was a take it or take it offer,’
It would be helpful to know just what that document actually said. Regards, tho, there's a big move equating to fascism, and our USA is rapidly getting worse, not better.
Gov should be smart enough to realize after all these years that it's interference with the capitalist / free market economy cannot ever produce anything better, it can only make it worse. And then we get to the Constitution and our personal freedom, zapped! - mentallyinhell, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1The U.S. has always been in a gray area between a democracy and an ***** running things. We occasionally go back and forth, but we usually pull back to the middle.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is