Yeah! Could I rob and bank and claim to be

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I don't want a check either but wouldn't be nice if they would give us the money instead of coming up with all these carppy bogged down packages?

What would you do if they would give us $30K or more? That would probably cost less than what they are proposing and you know darn well, that money would go into the economy faster than their plan.

WASHINGTON (AFP) �� The US Federal Reserve said Monday it had authorized China Construction Bank, a leading Chinese state bank, to operate in the United States.

The proposed New York City branch of CCB "would engage in wholesale deposit-taking, lending, trade finance, and other banking services," the Fed said in a statement.

The US central bank recalled that China Construction Bank Corporation (CCB) is 57.0 percent owned by the Chinese state, 19.7 percent by US banking group Bank of America and 5.7 percent by Temasek Holdings, a sovereign wealth fund owned by the government of Singapore. The remainder of the capital is publicly traded.

CCB is the second-largest bank in China, with total assets of approximately 1.1 trillion dollars, it noted.

The Fed said it had determined that CCB had adequate anti-money laundering safeguards and had committed to respect US laws on money laundering.

CCB's own funds exceed the minimum set by the 1998 Basel Capital Accord and "is considered equivalent to capital that would be required of a US banking organization," the US central bank said.

CCB would be the fourth mainland Chinese bank -- excluding banks in Hong Kong -- to open operations in the US, after the Agricultural Bank of China, the Bank of China and the Bank of Communications.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China's top bank, also has asked the Fed for authorization to open a branch in New York.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081208/pl_afp/uschinabankregulatebankingcompanyccb

Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has come out in favor of nationalizing some banks. (Photo: Reuters Pictures)

The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.

In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.

"It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."

Mr Greenspan's comments capped a frenetic day in which policymakers across the political spectrum appeared to be moving towards accepting some form of bank nationalisation.

"We should be focusing on what works," Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, told the FT. "We cannot keep pouring good money after bad." He added, "If nationalisation is what works, then we should do it."

Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that "in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control" of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.

The former Fed chairman said temporary government ownership would "allow the government to transfer toxic assets to a bad bank without the problem of how to price them."

But he cautioned that holders of senior debt - bonds that would be paid off before other claims - might have to be protected even in the event of nationalisation.

"You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks," he said. "This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt."

Mr Greenspan's comments came as President Barack Obama signed into law the $787bn fiscal stimulus in Denver, Colorado. Mr Obama will announce on Wednesday a $50bn programme for home foreclosure relief in Phoenix, Arizona. Meanwhile, the White House was working last night on the latest phase of the bailout for two of the big three US carmakers.

In his speech after signing the stimulus, which he called the "most sweeping recovery package in our history", Mr Obama set out a vertiginous timetable of federal decisions in the coming weeks that included fixing the US banking system, submission next week of the 2009 budget and a bipartisan White House meeting to address longer-term fiscal discipline.

"We need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises," said Mr Obama. "Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles� but it does mark the beginning of the end."

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.

So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.

And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail.

He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.

What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that everything changed after 9/11 thing.

But not Walter.

We're a product of the '60s, he said. We believe government should be way away from us in that regard.

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

When you mess with my money, I want to know why, he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

The more I'm on, the scarier it gets, he said. It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy.

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to others, he said.

(Bob Kerr is a columnist for The Providence Journal. E-mail bkerr@projo.com.)

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.shns.com.)

This again from the McClatchy news group, which is not conservative by any means:

I have never claimed that. Did I vote for him....no. Have I given him a chance? What chance is there to give him? Look at what he has done in this short time. I don't want to wait another term in office before I see the huge mistakes that are happening now. And please correct me if I am wrong but I do recall many of you putting Bush down for every little thing that he ever did. I didn't vote for Bush either and I do believe he made some huge mistakes as well. You people have no problem cutting people down and not giving them a chance unless we are talking about Obama and then all of a sudden we are all horrible for opposing government spending MORE of our money. That makes us instantly prejudice.

You ridicule Bush for the war in Iraq and Obama said he would pull our troops out ASAP. We are still there and Obama has pushed back the time line to pull them out. Now we are in Afgan fighting the Taliban....which are the same terrorist freaks we ran out of Iraq. Gitmo is still open with no plan of where to put these terrorists. The usual rules in bankrupcty were changed in Chrysler's dealings so that the unions came out top dog....which is not supposed to happen like that. Obama has spent more money than Bush ever did and he wants to spend more. He promised no taxes of any kind to 95% of Americans and yet he wants to institute cap and trade which will tax everyone. The jobs that he claims will be created with the spendulous package are not sustainable jobs. Only 1 out of 10 green jobs are sustainable long term. He is capping what CEOs can make. He has done nothing but apologize for the US wherever he goes and yet he fails to comment on all the good things that we have done for other countries or how much we gave relief to people after natural disasters. A man who gives abortion rights but takes away the rights of doctors and hospitals to deny performing a procedure they don't believe in when those patients could easily go elsewhere for that particular procedure. Our government is getting bigger and taking over too much. What right does our government have to cap pay for anyone? What right does our goverment have to okay bonuses for AIG and then turn around and demand the bonuses be taken away. I don't agree that they should get bonuses but congress approved it in the first place. Did you sleep through all of this? They are talking about taxing health care benefits to help pay for universal health care when Obama ridiculed McCain during the campaign stating how ridiculous it is for McCain to want to tax someone's benefits.....hello?

ARE YOU LISTENING? How much more time should I give him because I can say that he sucks?

smoke anywhere but you did mention nonsmokers not being content with banning you from smoking in public places and this is a constant argument I had with my dad for many years. A lot of smokers are very inconsiderate. More often than not you see them smoking at ball parks that have no smoking signs just because they think it is their right to smoke no matter how many children are around them at the time. I've been in my car at a stoplight and my car filled with a smell of smoke and I looked over to see the person in the car next to me smoking. Smokers just do not realize how far their smoke carries and how really harmful it is to nonsmokers. Parents who continually take their kids to the doctors for ear infections or respiratory problems and yet continue to smoke around them. My dad used to smoke in the car with all three of us kids in the back but he thought we would be fine because the window was cracked. All that did was blow unwanted ashes back towards us. Amazingly none of us three kids smoke. We all vowed never to pick up the habit and none of us married a smoker either.

I wasn't trying to be rude.....but smoking is a very sore subject with me. Not only did I lose one grandpa to lung cancer and another grandpa to emphysema but I lost my dad 2 years ago to emphysema and I just absolutely HATE cigarettes. To think of the years those stupid things robbed me of my 2 grandpas and my dad.....I just loathe cigarettes.

This morning I was thinking this Rove thing over and the main issue is the deception by this administration over the wanting to buy uranium claim. When Wilson went to check it out and reported back that the claim was incorrect, it still was included in the State of the Union address, to scare the American people into war. That is the main issue, the lies for going to war.

even figure out who's WITH you, as evidenced by the little hissy fit above between you and another CON!!!

Please keep posting. You're getting whackier with each post and revealing yourself for the nut case you truly are!!!

Plus, I'm intrigued by all the different voices in your head who surface at different times. I guess tonight TM is doing the talking, and TM seems to be even more rude and angry and hateful than you usually are.

Why so angry, MT? Roberts was confirmed today. Why aren't you happy? Or do you just have a terminal case of chronic bitterness, no matter what? Have you ever been nice to ANYONE?

PLEASE keep posting. You're quite entertaining, even if in a pathetic sort of way.

...your mind, claim to know how well you "scan," etc. They're the scariest of all.

I wonder how Gourd Painter is doing. Looks like she was chased away by the bullies. Too bad. I enjoyed her perspectives.

After all, you are not GW who can manipulate the truth as he pleases. But anyway, please provide the "burn in hell for eternity" quote that seems to appear over and over. I notice that this "quote" also changes slightly each time it is "quoted."

For those who can read and decide for themselves. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

When a senator sponsor a bill, he originates the concept, surveys the landscape for support or lack thereof, identifies targets for persuasion, and works for bipartisan consensus. This would involve extensive research on the content of the bill, assessment of benefits versus cost, knowledge of past voting records of constituents and fashioning persuasive arguments using pros and cons, according to who his individual target is and where he or she is coming from. He determines constitutionality, legality and any possible conflict of interests. He authors the bill. He introduces the bill, debates the bill in the chambers, takes and answers criticism, compromises, rewrites and so forth until passage is achieved. He then turns around and goes through much the same process to promote the bill in the house. Then he holds his breath and hopes the president from his opposition party does not wipe out all his hard work with the stroke of a veto pen. When he cosponsors a bill, he does much the same thing with a partner or partners.

The accomplishments I listed under the state experience section actually were Obama's initiatives. The US senate list does not just reflect legislation. It also demonstrates varied committee membership, which reflects a completely different type of experience, much along the lines of study groups and research focused on strategy building of national and internation consequence.

Two final observations. Every single item listed under O's experience indicates the issues he takes most seriously and aligns consistently with the platform he now proposes on a national level in the presidential campaign. Thus, this addresses the trust issue so often raised by his detractors. O obviously has been a quick study, or he would not have been able to successfully seize the nomination of his party.

I do not understand how SP's so-called executive experiences trumps this record. In fact, my question would be where then DID she get her consensus-building experience from if she was so totally in charge of people she expected to simply fall in line. Lastly, I am still wondering exactly how SP's record is comparable in this regard...or in words of one syllable...how does she stack up?