On the night of Barack Obama's historic presidential win….Fox News Freaks…and that's what they are….wet their pants in unison over an alleged plan by Obama and the Democrats to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in media. Brit Hume, Karl Rove, Chris Wallace and Juan Williams, just minutes after Obama had been declared the winner, insisted that electing Obama meant the wingnut media sky would fall.
Eliminated during the Reagan administration, the reason for the Fairness Doctrine, originally, was to make sure that the public airwaves didn't unfairly propagandize or monopolize those airwaves by only airing one side of a debate or policy disagreement.
In spite of the fact that NO….count 'em, No….Democrat is pushing for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine,….let alone Obama….No reinstatement of the Doctrine is in the lineup of Congressional bills…the dishonest and propagandistic freaks from the conservative side still INSIST that the nation is in mortal danger from an imminent reinstatement of said Doctrine.
It's just how these freaks roll, I guess. Chasing ghosts of their own devising.
Now a new freak slogan, a new freak word, one you may have noticed, has entered conservative media freakdom. "Nationalization."
The choice of the word nationalization by the freaks is purposeful….even though disingenuous….which, come to think of it….is the purpose. When you hear a propagandistic freak spouting the word nationalization in discussions of what to do with big, insolvent banks, it's to make viewers and listeners conjure up visions of a Soviet Union-style takeover of all private industry. Socialist hordes gathering at the border.
The use of the word, nationalization, by these freaks, fits in with the phony narrative these same freaks are still trying to spin daily, i.e….that Obama is a socialist/communist who wants to destroy America's capitalistic economy and put all economic power in the hands of the federal government. See? Just look….Obama wants to 'nationalize' the banks….we told you he was a socialist-commie. Sarah Palin was right.
But alas, as with the Fairness Doctrine bullsh*t, fears of 'nationalization' of banks is also unwarranted.
Short review…
Here's just one of Atrios' many references to banks which the FDIC have already "eated"….
On January 23, 2009, 1st Centennial Bank, Redlands, CA was closed by the California Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was named Receiver. No advance notice is given to the public when a financial institution is closed. Link
Failed banks, propagandistic freaks notwithstanding, have been "taken over" by the FDIC virtually every day during our economic collapse. Failed, insolvent banks are put into receivership by the FDIC regularly, shareholders wiped out, remaining assets apportioned to creditors, etc. These banks cease to exist. They have not been nationalized.
With the Bigs, like Citi, Bank of America, etc…..they, too, are insolvent, bankrupt….but because of the massive amount of "toxic asset", mortgage backed securities still being held by these Bigs….assets that we're being told Christ, himself, couldn't properly value…..they are too Big to fail, too Big to place into receivership.
Think about that for a moment.
In November of last year, W. and Henry Paulson decided to simply buy stock in those Big banks with our tax dollars. Buy stock in the same banks that have no idea what their balance sheets should have on them.(!) Remember, these guys are the professionals.
So, putting those banks into receivership, like the FDIC has been doing non-stop with smaller failed banks for months….is simply put off, compliments of your tax dollars. The freaking banks, themselves, (at least it's what they say) don't know, and can't figure out, what they are worth. Again, these guys are the professionals.
The purpose of the government in holding stock in these zombie banks was supposed to be a stop-gap measure until the balance sheets, mucked up by "toxic assets", could be unraveled. Neither Bush, nor Obama ever suggested, at any time, that the federal government should own and run (nationalize) any of these big banks.
These Big Bankrupt Banks want to have it both ways. They know they are bankrupt, insolvent….but they want everyone to pretend they're not. What the whole freak narrative of nationalization is intended to do, really, is to try to prevent the federal government from dissolving these big, undead, zombies.
Just as the freak breakdown over the Fairness Doctrine has no basis in fact….so too, nationalization of bank fears.
The Big Bankrupt Banks, in coordination with conservative freak media, are trying to scare Americans into pouring more billions into their rotted zombie institutions by using the scare tactic of 'nationalization.'
Even though NO ONE on either side wants government to own and run these banks.
Freaks.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
New York Representative Louise Slaughter drafted the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, an effort that would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that she supports the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Dianne Feinstein has said she is looking at reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Just how many Democrats have to say it, and how recent does it have to be?
Ouch Reverend!
Mike — Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.s last action is listed as February 25, 2005. Lets see that is over 4 years ago. Do ya think there is any action going on? Ouch.
Rev,
I think you should have used the word "freak" a few more times to describe your political opponents. It so illustrates your fair-mindedness.
Mary,
The Dems had no chance of passing the Fairness Doctrine until now. That's why no action was taken previously. One month after Obama became president, it was voted on in the Senate. Ouch.
I'd like to congratulate FoxNews and the entire GOP for getting on top of this issue and letting it into the light, making the public aware of it, and exposing Democrats for the freedom crushing creeps that many of them are. THAT is why the Fairness Doctrine failed in the Senate. There is no other reason. If the Dems could have gotten away with it without looking like a bunch of commies in the public eye, they would have done it in a hearbeat.
A win for the good guys.
"The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would outlaw the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," an off-the-books policy that once required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment passed by a wide margin of 87-to-11."
Enough proof? Or will it take a second vote for the ouchers to believe?
Anyone want to deal with the nationalization issue? Anyone…Beuller…
What party did the 11 who voted FOR the Fairness Doctrine belong to, the Whig party ?
Obama said he was against it (thanks again FoxNews and others), so most Dems followed the Prez. It's no secret that lots of Dems wanted the Fairness Doctrine. And the issue is not over. Dems can still accomplish the task of shutting up the righty talkers another way. Stay tuned.
—
What else did you want to talk about ? Oh yeah, bank nationalization and all the freaks who worry about it (I think I liked it better when you called them "villagers." That conjures up visions of mobs with pitchforks and torches and such. Nice imagery. "Freaks" reminds me too much of the old hippie days. That conjures up long-haired dopers in tie-dyed t-shirts. Doesn't fit the righty stereotype).
Today, it was announced that the government will buy 36% ownership of Citigroup, and demand changes there. Now, if there was a word to describe the act of government taking ownership of a private enterprise and implementing governmental policy at that enterprise, what do you suppose that word would be ???? Hmmm. Let me think……okay, I've got it. That word just might be "nationalization."
And haven't Fannie and Freddie already been nationalized ?
And didn't Obama say he was partial to the Swedish model of dealing with failing banks (quasi-nationalization) ? And haven't several left-wingers and some Democrats in Congress say they favor bank nationalization ? Didn't Alan Greenspan also say it might be necessary ? Haven't some Republicans, like Lindsay Graham, agreed ?
Yet you act like it's all some crazy talk radio conspiracy or something. Fraid not. In this case, it's much ado about something.
But I don't think Obama wants to just take them ALL completely over. Not yet, anyway.
I still insist that no one wants to nationalize the banks. Clean up the sewage in them? Yes.
Now….The Reverend WOULD nationalize the banking industry….in a heartbeat. The reason?….the banking industry can't be trusted….and it sure looks to me like recent evidence proves me correct.
S&L scam, dot.com balloon scam, Enron and Enron-like scams, oil commodities scam, and now derivative and default swap scams.
They. Can't. Be. Trusted.
So it's gone from no one wants to nationalize to, 'Well heck it's a pretty good idea!'
See, Obama and his corporate Treasury Dept still believe, like Greenspan once did, that the Masters of the Universe will do what's fair and just. They won't. So, in a modern age of mouse clicking, I don't want private enterprise in charge of the nation's money. No thanks.
How much money would the free market banking system have to steal from Americans before we woke up and said no more? $100 trillion? $500 trillion? How much?
un-ruled players,
left to rot,
in the fields,
born of greed,
unsaved,
over extended.
Lending-hands,
making mistakes,
flavors of honey,
devoured by vermin,
and locust.
This one is pretty good. If only it were, you know, literal. Wall Street playa's rotting in the field and being eaten by vermin…..go call Steven King.
The Rev say no one wants to nationalize the banks at the same time he says he wants to nationalize the banks, and at the same time that some banks have already been nationalized.
I think this issue has been settled.