Treasury Takeover Not Permanent, Just Indefinite

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: in•def•i•nite
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈdef-nət, -ˈde-fə-\
Function:adjective
Etymology:Latin indefinitus, from in- + definitus definite
Date:1530
: not definite: as
a: typically designating an unidentified, generic, or unfamiliar person or thing
b: not precise : VAGUE
c: having no exact limits

Main Entry: per•ma•nent
Pronunciation: \-nənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French parmanant, from Latin permanent-, permanens, present participle of permanēre to endure, from per- throughout + manēre to remain — more atPER-, MANSION
Date: 15th century
: continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change

So Treasury Secretary Tim ‘Tax Cheat’ Geithner says that the Treasury takeover of the financial sector is not exactly permanent, but does not have a real exit strategy to put the businesses back in the hands of the free market.

Imagine that. A government program being solidified into a NEVER ENDING structure. Shades of FDR.

Read more here.

The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?

Make Millions By Bailing Out The Bailed-Out

A new plan by Glorious Leader’s team has come to light. Since Europe won’t help us by spending more money, the administration has hatched a plan to entice private investors to buy the troubled assets that are pulling banks down into an economic abyss. Even though they have, as yet, been unsuccessful in garnering private industry support the administration feels that these new “mutual funds” will be a great investment.

The funds, the thinking goes, would buy troubled mortgage securities from banks, enabling the lenders to make the loans that are needed to rekindle the economy. Many of the loans that back these securities were made during the subprime era. If all goes well, the funds will eventually sell the investments at a profit.

But, as with any investment, there are risks. If, as some analysts suspect, the banks’ assets are worth even less than believed, the funds’ investors could suffer significant losses. Nonetheless, the administration and executives in the financial industry are pushing to establish the investment funds, in part to counter swelling hostility against the financial industry…

…Perhaps more important than the money would be the political bonus of having thousands or even millions of taxpayers — whose portfolios have nose-dived during the crisis and whose tax dollars are financing bank bailouts and stimulus packages — profit from the toxic asset plan.

Did you notice the key line here?

there are risks. If, as some analysts suspect, the banks’ assets are worth even less than believed, the funds’ investors could suffer significant losses

I know, looking at how honest and open our government has been thus far regarding the troubled assets, there is no way in HELL I would ever partner with the likes of Bawny Fwank or Corruptible Dodd. But that is just me. Welcome to WWI redux.

The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?

Why Not Just Take It All?

After all is said and done, all that Glorious Leader and his tax-cheat-in-charge want is:

To make it easier to take over a financial business.

Huh? Am I the only person who finds something wrong with this? We want it to be easy? As in.. no big deal, we do it all the time easy?

*Forehead Slap*

The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?

Smoke And Mirrors

He Of The Ever-Tear, the self-proclaimed “mostly chick” has them nailed. Check out Glenn Beck’s The One Thing.

The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?