Fed Ownership of Bank Stock - "Temporary and Non-voting?"

Alright, here's one for all of you who can still think past all the glitz and glamour of Barack Hussein Obama's campaign.

Barack has been schooled, from early in his youth,in Marxist Economics. In his reply to "Joe the Plumber," what stands out is his dedication to the concept of the redistribution of wealth. His basic economic tenet is, as was Hillary's, "shared prosperity."

Also known as "economic justice," or simply "fairness," in reality, it is just repackaged Marxism.

So, here's the question for all you folks out there:

Today, in his adress to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, President Bush attempted to reassure the American people, those of us who vehemently disagree with the "bailout package," and Conservative economists that the U.S. Government's ownership of Bank mortgaged property and non-voting (a.k.a. "Preferred") stock was going to be so structured as to encourage those private institutions to buy back their assets as quickly as the become financially solvent enough to do so.

Here is the relevent portion of his address:

"...Some have viewed this temporary measure as a step toward nationalizing banks. This is simply not the case. This program is designed with strong protections to ensure the government's involvement in individual banks is limited in size, limited in scope, and limited in duration.

The government's involvement is limited in size. The government will only buy a small percentage of shares in banks that choose to participate, so that private investors retain majority ownership.

The government's involvement is limited in scope. The government will not exercise control over any private firm. Federal officers will not have a seat around your local bank's boardroom table. The shares owned by the government will have voting rights that can be used only to protect the taxpayers' investment, not to direct the firm's operations.

The government's involvement is limited in duration. It includes provisions to encourage banks to buy their shares back from the government when markets stabilize, and they can raise money from private investors. This will ensure that banks have an incentive to find private capital to replace the taxpayers' investment, and to do so quickly.

For those worried about the long-term consequences of the actions, our history offers some comfort. On several occasions over the past century, the government has taken partial ownership of private companies in the banking industry during times of great financial challenge -- most recently during the savings and loans failures of the 1980s and 1990s. In every case, the government relinquished its ownership stakes after the crisis ended. And we will do so again. The government intervention is not a government takeover -- its purpose is not to weaken the free market; it is to preserve the free market."

Wow, I guess we should all quit worrying, right?

Well beyond the obvious point that during the bailout of the Federal Savings and Loans of the late 80's and Early 90's, we had a Republican in the White House. Yes at the end of the Resolution Trust Corporation's life, Democrat Bill Clinton was the president, but at least he was part of the more moderate Democrat Leadership Council and besides that, he was less of a Leftist ideologue and more of a narcissist.

In Barack Obama, we have a dedicated Marxist. He is a true believer and is determined to fundamentally re-align the American economy in line with his Liberal upbringing.

So...How many people out there are actually gullible enough to believe that, should Barack Hussein Obama be elected with a supermajority of Democrats in the Senate and a Pelosi led majority in the House, federal ownership in those banks will remain "temporary and non-paticipatory?"

If you do, you are one of those people con-men just love to run into.

By the way...exactly how many bridges have you bought in your life?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below