Bank Nationalization/Toxic Asset Plans -Whatever - It Will Cost Money - Should Obama Chicken Out?

[Median Democrat]

The politically easy move is to throw your hands in discuss, and to say fuck you to Wall Street, walk away, and blame Bush for the mess, but not lift a finger to fix this mess. Afterall, everytime Obama makes a proposal to fix healthcare, stimulate the economy, etc., he gets attacked from the left and right. Worse, there is no easy answer on the bank front. Even nationalization, which is championed by Krugman, would require the Federal government to assume trillions of dollars in liabilities. So, perhaps Obama should due a Bush, and stick his head in the sand for eight years, give happy talk, then blame his predecessor and successors while not lifting a finger to fix anything.

This TIME article discusses the no-win situation the Democratic administration is in. On the one hand, Obama gets blamed for the economy because he has not addressed the weak condition of the Nation's banks. However, omce a solution is raised, you know whatever it is it will be expensive, and will be attacked as a waste of tax payer money.

Is there some free, cost-free solution? Or, perhaps the politically smart solution is to chicken out, hide from the press at Bush's Crawford Ranch, and do nothing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090317/us_time/08599188565700

/snip

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has a problem. On the one hand, he has to act to save the banks if he's going to start credit flowing and get the economy back on track. On the other hand, doing so makes him and his bosses look bad: Americans are against bailing out the banks by more than 2 to 1 in some polls. Worse, the banks themselves are deeply mistrustful of anything government might force on them: The head of Wells Fargo told Bloomberg on Monday that a key part of Geithner's plan (the so-called stress test) was "asinine." (Read "Can Your Bank Pass the Stress Test?")


So when Geither rolls out more details of his plan later this week - this time on the tricky question of getting toxic assets off the banks' books - it will be a dangerous moment for him. Not only will the health of the banks and the economy depend on whether his new program is well-received; Geithner's reputation will be on the line as well. Panned after he put out a vague framework Feb. 10, the new Treasury secretary only has so many chances to instill confidence. With the new bank plan, he's getting a second one, but it will be a hard sell.

/snip

[FrenchieCat]

1. Boy....You should be posting in the economy forum.....

You make more sense then anyone else here at DU.

Over at GD, they are readying a protest against Barack Obama.

[Median Democrat]

2. Obama Pretty Much Telegraphed That He Knew He Was Taking A Hit...

During his address to congress. He said that it would be politically unpopular to address the banking mess. You know what? He was absolutely right. Yet, he does not simply hide and bitch like a Republican, who criticizes but offers no real solutions. Or, like Bush who offered the snake oil of deregulation, spending and tex cuts, while kicking the real problems down the curb. On Sunday, when Republicans were asked for a comprehensive budget plan of their own, they declined to offer one, saying its the Obama administrations responsibility, and when pressed a slight bit, they said that due to "parliamentary reasons" they would only provide amendments. Again, many DUers are acting like chicken shit Republicans.

Sadly, like Clinton passing the tax increases that lead to a budget surplus, Obama is going to need to take a hell of a political hit for doing the right thing. Then the Republicans will re-take congress in 2010 because they acted like chicken shits.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Such is the deal.

It is fucked up.

Worse, some on our side can't see none of this......cause they are missing the forest for the trees.

Sucks.

But he will do what he's got to do.

Anyways, please continue posting.
You are leaps and bounds ahead
of so many!