Obama’s leap to socialism

[carpro]

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html

Obama’s leap to socialism
By Dick Morris

Posted: 04/21/09 05:21 PM [ET]

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.

 

[Pastor David]

Obama’s leap to socialism?

It was more like a short stroll.

 

[OldRegular]

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html

Obama’s leap to socialism
By Dick Morris

Posted: 04/21/09 05:21 PM [ET]

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.

I hate to keep repeating this but Joe the Plumber got Czar obama to admit this before the election.

 

[JustChristian]

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html

Obama’s leap to socialism
By Dick Morris

Posted: 04/21/09 05:21 PM [ET]

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.

This stock was bought by George W. Bush.

 

[OldRegular]

This stock was bought by George W. Bush.

Preferred stock was bought by President Bush. That is being converted to common stock by Czar obama. Big difference. Check it out!

 

[matt wade]

Serious question here, please try to answer seriously.

So, if the preferred stock is converted to common stock, according to what you are saying the government will hold over 50 percent of the common stock for each of "the major banks and financial institutions in the nation."

Can anyone provide me with any data to show that the government would indeed hold a majority of common stock?

 

[carpro]

Preferred stock was bought by President Bush. That is being converted to common stock by Czar obama. Big difference. Check it out!

You're wasting your time.

The difference between the two is stated in the article.

JC is just not interested in the facts or the truth.

 

[OldRegular]

Serious question here, please try to answer seriously.

So, if the preferred stock is converted to common stock, according to what you are saying the government will hold over 50 percent of the common stock for each of "the major banks and financial institutions in the nation."

Can anyone provide me with any data to show that the government would indeed hold a majority of common stock?

Don't they have Google or Yahoo wherever you are?

 

[matt wade]

Don't they have Google or Yahoo wherever you are?

Yes, and I've been unable to find any data to show the percentage of common stock the government would own. If you've been able to Google or Yahoo the answer, please provide a link. I'd be very interested to see it.

 

[donnA]

not much of a leap for obama

JC is just not interested in the facts or the truth.

only obama is truth, only his facts are necessary to JC.

 

[carpro]

Serious question here, please try to answer seriously.

So, if the preferred stock is converted to common stock, according to what you are saying the government will hold over 50 percent of the common stock for each of "the major banks and financial institutions in the nation."

Can anyone provide me with any data to show that the government would indeed hold a majority of common stock?

I didn't see anyone make that allegation.

One does not have to hold a "majority" of the common stock to dictate or drastically influence policy.

 

[matt wade]

One does not have to hold a "majority" of the common stock to dictate or drastically influence policy.

Yes, one does have to hold a majority to dictate policy. The claim is the the government "will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation". In order to control they will have to have a majority of common stock.

I own common stock in several banks and financial institutions. I certainly can't dictate policy, though I'd love to be able to do so. Could you clue me in how I can accomplish that?

 

[matt wade]

I didn't see anyone make that allegation.

Oh, and the article you posted does make the allegation:

Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions

 

[carpro]

Yes, one does have to hold a majority to dictate policy.

Math is not one of your strong points , I see.

Perhaps naivity is.

 

[matt wade]

Math is not one of your strong points , I see.

Perhaps naivity is.

If I'm in error, why not explain what the error is instead of making snide remarks?

Or perhaps arrogance and a condescending attitude are just your strong points?

 

[carpro]

Yes, one does have to hold a majority to dictate policy. The claim is the the government "will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation". In order to control they will have to have a majority of common stock.

I own common stock in several banks and financial institutions. I certainly can't dictate policy, though I'd love to be able to do so. Could you clue me in how I can accomplish that?

You could if you owned 30% and no one else owned more then 5% and they couldn't get together enough votes to over rule you.

Learn, young Jedi.

 

[matt wade]

You could if you owned 30% and no one else owned more then 5% and they couldn't get together enough votes to over rule you.

Learn, young Jedi.

If the government owns 30% then that means other entities own 70%. The 70% can out vote the 30% every day of the week.

So in that case the government would not be able to "dicate policy". It would not result in socialism. How can it be socialism if the public that owns 70% of the common stock can over rule the government that owns 70%?

 

[carpro]

If the government owns 30% then that means other entities own 70%. The 70% can out vote the 30% every day of the week.

So in that case the government would not be able to "dicate policy". It would not result in socialism. How can it be socialism if the public that owns 70% of the common stock can over rule the government that owns 70%?

Won't matter.

The bank folds if the government takes it's ball and goes home.

Wake up. Being a contrarian is fine until the facts slap you in the face, but you feel you still have to hold onto your wrongheaded ideas. That only makes you look immature and foolish. The realities of stock ownership and operational control of corporations all across America are in direct contravention to your hardheaded stance.

 

[matt wade]

The bank folds if the government takes it's ball and goes home.

So now you've changed the subject. At first it was that the government was going to dictate policy to the banks and that we would have socialism. Now it is that the government is going to cause the banks to fold up and the bank won't be there anymore.

How can the government dictate policy to a bank that doesn't exist anymore since the government made them fold up?

Also, I love how anyone who disagrees with you is a contrarian and is immature and foolish. Thanks again for the attacks. I've come to expect it from you.

 

[carpro]

So now you've changed the subject.

The subject hasn't changed. It has always been control.

Your stance has been defeated by the facts and reality.