Obama's Stealth Leap to Socialism

Fred Garvin's picture

Obama's Stealth Leap to Socialism

President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country's banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

Fred Garvin's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:22am.

Selling preferred stock, buying common stock = Socialism!

Who knew?


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:54am.

Sniffles- can you state what the difference is between preferred stock and common. Does possessing common stock give you voting rights and the ability to appoint the board? just curious why someone would make this claim unless the government suddenly became able to appoint and vote.

Also, why is the government not allowing for companies to pay off their TARP if able? Enlight us with your wisdom, please


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 12:05pm.

Finance 301 was many moons ago, but as I understood the difference between preferred and common is that preferred generally carries a guaranteed dividend with the tradeoff being no voting rights. Common stock dividends get paid after preferred. There's also a special type of preferred that gets a special on-top-of-everything-else dividend in the case of windfall profits, I don't recall the name. I guess what Darth and Fred have their collective man-panties in a wad over is the fact that common stock gives the Govt. the ability to vote their shares?

Insofar as TARP repayment, I made a misstatement the other day: I found out that Citibank was actively repaying 5% notes to the Government instead of 10% notes to investor Warren Buffett. I had assumed they were doing that in order to preserve exec bonuses at the expense of overall profitability, as the Govt. notes put limits on executive bonuses. I've since found out that the Govt. notes MUST be repaid (i.e. take the status of "senior debt") before any other bonds/loans. (Usual Caveat: unlike certain posters, whose fathers raised cowards and whose mothers raised liars, I don't have any problem admitting when I am mistaken)

Haven't heard anything else about Govt. not allowing TARP....got any examples?


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 2:54pm.

I saw a Reuters story concerning a MN bank that repayed tarp funds, stating it was the eighth bank to do so, so obviously there appears to be a mechanism for this, at least with small banks. The larger financial firms have warrants that have to be discharged and that is where I am seeing reports of the government having reticence about allowing them out of the program.

Now the government having voting stock in private companies. That is a different pickle. Don't you see issues with that Sniffles? What happens when the government gets a 51% stake in a company? Do they get special deals? Do they become the NAtional Bank that Andrew Jackson fought against? That part does not smell good to me


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:22pm.

I went and read that Reuters story you referenced. You are correct, there are repayment/buyout clauses on all government investments (TARP is not a "loan", it's an investment by the govt.)

The government isn't reticent about having banks buy them out of their investments, to the contrary, the government stands to make an extraordinary amount of pure profit on any TARP buyout that occurs prior to the 36 month expiration window.

THAT is what has the bank up in arms. The government basically said (I'm paraphrasing here) "we'll partner with you over the short term to get you through the liquidity crunch, in exchange for 5% of your profits....but if things go great for you in the first year, we want 19% of your profits".

Well, guess what? Some of these banks have actually weathered the credit storm quite well, in a little less than 6 months, and want to buy the government warrants out. The trouble is, the warrants now sell at a HUGE premium because the bank itself didn't project an expected return to profitability until beyond the current year, hence the effective 19% return on investment.

On your other issue, there is simply no way in hell that the government will amass a 51% stake in a bank. There are huge hurdles to overcome when anyone amasses more than 5.9% of a company, and the rules change dramatically. I suspect the most the government will invest in any one bank will be 2% or less, which still makes it a "major investor", not unlike a mutual fund.

There was a great article on TARP and warrants that just came out today...the link is HERE


The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 11:53am.

So tell me though, why would the government want to get rid of preferred stocks that get them to be the first in line for dividends and trade that for common stock with no benefits except voting rights? That does not make sense to me if all they were worried about was getting their money back


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:09pm.

After reading the above article, I must admit I am perplexed by the government's decision to swap preferred stock for common stock. I can't think of a reason to do so.

edited to add: Okay, I found an explanation of sorts. Long story short: the more pref. stock outstanding the LESS likely a bank is to make loans. More common purchases = more loans.
LINK

Not sure if I buy into this guy's theory 100%, though.


S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 1:17pm.

You got the HOTS for me or what.. between making references about me to others and telling Cyclist you have nude photos of me I am beginning to believe you are just a little bi.. well ok alot Bi-- but thats cool.. just thought I would let you know I don't swing that way.. but with your massive MAN-BOOBS I am sure you can scrounge up some luving soon.. Give Perez Hilton a call.. he's looking.

Oh and still waiting on those stats.. you know where you said a MAJORITY of Americans want Socialized Health Care..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil

GUN CONTROL Link


Gene61's picture
Submitted by Gene61 on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 8:38am.

It only took the Obama administration a couple of weeks to prove that the national leadership of the Democratic Party is guided by totalitarian-minded socialists who seek to create an omnipotent government. The U.S. government is now controlled by people who have been dreaming of living out their utopian socialist fantasies ever since the fantasies were brought to their attention in college decades ago by their Mao/Castro/Che Guevara poster-hanging, capitalism-hating, communistic professors.

The administration’s main agenda is an explosion of federal spending and debt so large and outrageous that America will soon exceed Sweden in the proportion of the economy that is controlled by government – if it hasn’t already. That’s just for starters.

They also want to sharply increase taxes on the most productive and hardest-working people in society; increase the capital gains tax to deter private investment; expand the welfare state; spend trillions on pure, pork barrel spending in a massive vote-buying spree; set all corporate compensation levels by governmental fiat; tax away the wealth of unpopular business people (only starting with those AIG executives); regulate and control all risk taking by private entrepreneurs; enforce a civilian draft to create a modern-day, American version of the Hitler Youth (See Rahm Emanuel’s creepy, Stalinist-sounding book entitled The Plan); nationalize entire industries, starting with the capital markets (they understand that there can be no capitalism without private capital markets); and double, triple, and quadruple the number of "regulators" who already regulate all aspects of human life in America.

At the recent G-20 meeting Obama even signed off on the creation of an international regulatory "authority" that could set compensation policies in American corporations. On top of this, there is a never-ending drumbeat of anti-capitalist propaganda coming from the administration and its worshipful mouthpieces in the "mainstream media."

What can be done? How can this rush toward totalitarian socialism be stopped? Will the Republicans find another old, angry geezer to appeal to the angry white male vote? How about another mumbling and incompetent Bush family heir? Will there be another Reagan who will talk libertarian while governing more like a European Social Democrat?

Will they trot out another old "war hero" who will plunge us into war with Iran, North Korea, China, or whomever, to divert our attention away from the economic mess government has placed us in? These are the likely alternatives if we cling to the fantasy that "throwing the bums out" at election time leads to something other than another group of slightly different bums.

The fact is that the American people have been servants or slaves to their government for generations. It wasn’t always that way. When the Adams administration enforced the Sedition Act that made criticism of the federal government illegal, Jefferson and Madison responded with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 that clearly stated that the people did not intend to allow the enforcement of this unconstitutional law within those two states. Section One of Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve stated, for example, that "the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government . . ." Other states supported Jefferson and Madison in their defense of free speech.

When President Thomas Jefferson imposed a national trade embargo and consummated the Louisiana Purchase, New Englanders, led by George Washington’s Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, loudly threatened to secede. They decided against it (for practical economic and political reasons) at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, but their actions sent a clear message to national politicians.
Outraged by the embargo, the Massachusetts legislature used the language of Jefferson’s own Kentucky Resolve to proclaim that the embargo "was not legally binding on the citizens of the state" while denouncing the federal law as "unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional" and reminding President Jefferson that "this state maintains its sovereignty and independence . . ."

All the New England states, plus Delaware, did the exact same thing and nullified the embargo.

When Alexander Hamilton’s Bank of the United States, a precursor to the Fed, created 72 percent inflation in the first five years of its existence and corrupted politics with its politicized spending policies, citizens all over the country assisted President Andrew Jackson in eventually destroying the institution. The heroic Ohio legislature slapped a $50,000/year tax on each branch of the BUS, attempting to drive it out of business. "The states have an equal right to interpret the Constitution for themselves," announced the Ohio legislature, and it decided that the BUS was not constitutional. Kentucky, Tennessee, Connecticut, South Carolina, New York, and New Hampshire followed suit.

When the War of 1812 broke out the New England states effectively seceded from the union by refusing to participate. A proclamation by the Connecticut legislature was representative of the opinions of New Englanders: "[I]t must not be forgotten that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic," and that it was refusing to support the war.

When the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" created an average tariff rate of 45%, applying mostly to Northern manufactured goods, South Carolinians clearly understood that this was a pure act of political plunder at their expense. They convened a political convention to utilize the Jeffersonian idea of nullification and refused to collect the tariff. They even got the South Carolina legislature to allocate $160,000 for the purchase of firearms with which to fend off any would-be federal tax collectors. The result was that they forced the federal government to lower the tariff rate.

During the 1850s the "middle states" of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey developed a very active secession movement that sought to either join a Southern confederacy, form a middle-states confederacy, or support Southern secession. (See The Secession Movement in the Middle States by William C. Wright). Their overriding desire was to separate themselves from the imperious New England Yankees.

When the Southern states seceded in 1860–61, Abraham Lincoln pledged his everlasting support for Southern slavery in his first inaugural address, an address in which he endorsed a constitutional amendment (the "Corwin Amendment") that would have forbidden the federal government from ever interfering with slavery. In the same speech he promised a military invasion and "bloodshed" in any Southern state that ceased paying his beloved tariff on imports which, at the time, accounted for more than 90% of federal tax revenue. The average tariff rate had just been doubled by the Republican-controlled Congress.

The Southern states, along with most people in the North, still held the Jeffersonian belief that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and when that consent is withdrawn the citizens have a duty to abolish the existing government and form a new one. Jefferson never wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the citizens have a duty to abolish the government and form a new one "as long as the other states all agree that you may do so." If the right of secession depends on someone else’s permission, then one does not have a right of secession. That was a fantasy invented by Lincoln, which he used to "justify" waging total war on his own country, murdering some 350,000 American citizens, including some 50,000 civilians. From that time on, government in America was no longer "for the people, by the people, of the people," as Chief Justice John Marshal once said in a phrase that was later plagiarized by Lincoln. From that time on the purpose of government has been for those who run it to plunder those who do not.

Nullification and secession were no longer tools with which the citizens could control their own government.

The final nails in the coffin of government by consent were pounded in during the year 1913 with the advent of the federal income tax, the creation of the Fed, and the Seventeenth Amendment calling for the direct election of U.S. senators. The income tax and the Fed gave the federal government the ability to do whatever it wanted to do regardless of the Constitution – even to wage "undeclared" wars. These vast "riches" were used to make millions of Americans totally subservient to the state lest they lose their tiny government subsidies, and to bribe or threaten state governments to do whatever our masters in Washington, D.C. decree, lest they lose their cherished federal highway grants. The ability of the citizens to oppose the federal Leviathan by organizing political communities at the state and local levels was finally destroyed and the centralized, monopolistic bureaucracy that rules America and much of the rest of the world today was created.

The direct election of U.S. senators, as opposed to the original system of having them appointed by state legislature, ended popular control of the federal government. Today, candidates for the senate go to New York, California, China, or wherever the big money is that can be raised as "campaign contributions" to finance their political careers. The interests of such "contributors" are not necessarily congruent with those of the folks back home.

Thomas Jefferson understood that democracy could never work in a country as large as the U.S., let alone one with more than 300 million people. In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly he wrote: "Whether we remain one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern." On the topic of secession, Jefferson continued: "Did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power."

When the New England Federalists were threatening secession, Jefferson wrote to his friend John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803 that if New England seceded and created a second confederacy, "God bless them both if it be for their good, but separate them, if it is better."

Unlike Lincoln, Jefferson did not believe in threatening "bloodshed" in the case of a "separation" or secession. He understood that such behavior would be a moral abomination and an unimaginable act of barbarianism. A civilized society does not wage total war on "our children," as Jefferson described the future citizens of a new state formed by an act of secession. Yet it is Lincoln, not Jefferson, who is portrayed by American court historians as a kindly, benevolent, and charitable angel.

The Constitution long ago ceased placing any meaningful limits on governmental power. This social contract between the American people and their government was destroyed long ago by Hamiltonian nationalists. Americans now live under a series of dictators (called "presidents") who all believe that they are essentially dictators of the world, capable of ordering the bombing of any place on earth without anyone’s approval. (Within weeks, Obama dipped his hands in blood by ordering a few bombs to be dropped in Pakistan).
As of this writing, several dozen states have reportedly issued resolutions in support of the Jeffersonian principle of nullification. These will all be completely meaningless unless the American public has the fortitude to actually enforce the resolutions and begin ignoring any and all federal government actions that they interpret as unconstitutional and illegitimate. In addition, citizens of every state should learn about the Second Vermont Republic which, for several years now, has been laying the groundwork for Vermont to secede and once again become an free and independent republic, just as all the states thought of themselves as being prior to 1865.


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:03am.

"How can this rush toward totalitarian socialism be stopped? Will the Republicans find another old, angry geezer to appeal to the angry white male vote?"

Well, it's not a rush towards socialism so calm the heck down. And YES, the Repub's will find another idiot to prop up in 2012 that appeals to the far right fringe of your party - a candidate that wants to continue to peer into people's bedrooms and legislate the female uterus.

Get used to losing. Your party is slow to change.


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:25am.

I think it's interesting how WD's rant sounds exactly like a tin-foil hat Libertarian Lew Rockwell commentary.

Must be a coincidence.


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 12:26pm.

...cite your source next time so we know when your posts are comprised of a cut-and-paste job, instead of an original thought.

Source


DarthDubious's picture
Submitted by DarthDubious on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 12:26pm.

we've been domesticated with socialism since FDR.

When you have a demogogue, with a massive following of personality cultists, pushing the extreme programs of international banksters, and Wall Street financial oligarchs, that's FASCISM.

In Liberty,

DarthDubious


yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 5:57pm.

did you read that article by Henry Wallace yet? And maybe it is called "Bushism" since we are having such a difficult time telling one of our demagogues from another. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 12:45pm.

You, Fred, and the teabaggers all use the words "socialism" and "fascism" interchangably.

I suspect that's one of the reasons why nobody takes any of you guys seriously.


DarthDubious's picture
Submitted by DarthDubious on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 1:57pm.

who loves and trusts his criminal government so much. Your's will be among the first bodies into the ovens.

Stop perpetuating the left-right propaganda sniffs, or is that what they're paying you for?

In Liberty,

DarthDubious


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.