I am not in favor of government control of banking. I have enough trouble balancing my checkbook without them dipping into my piggy bank.

I agree with Mark J, in that I feel that these banks should have been allowed to fall. Survival of the fittest in this case will produce the strongest and most capable banks. I’m sure all the bank owners were all about financial de-regulation and keeping the government off their backs until they were on their knees begging to be saved. And for what?

Do we know that the whole world would crumble if we allowed these banks to fall? No, that is complete speculation, mostly done by people with the most to lose. This is like saying that if AIG falls, then all insurers will fall, rather than the rest of the insurance companies absorbing the free business and becoming stronger.

So to answer the question, I say no, we should not have more government control of banks, but we should, however, spend more time rethinking the rules that we want our banks to follow and actually hold them accountable for when they break those rules, rather than give them a crutch like we are now.

And no, it’s not Clinton’s fault for making it easier for poorer people to get a house back in the 90s. Clinton did not force banks to give out loans with teaser rates to bring in lots of loans, that they knew couldn’t be repaid once the interest rate jumped. Banks gave those loans out because they get all the money they’re gonna see from those loans in the first few years, while the consumer is paying off interest, and not principal. The banks sell these loans off and they become securitized once the bank has made its money. That is not Clinton, that is a shady bank policy. And trading these securitized loans, knowing that they could easily be defaulted on, but betting on increasing housing prices and equity to keep them afloat, is a shady banking policy. I admit that there was a considerable amount of consumer irresponsibility, and probably a great deal of ignorance on their part as it concerns the agreements that they were entering in to, but this is behavior that you see replicated by people across the nation, not just the people who benefited from Clinton’s policy 10 years ago.

No, international socialist banking is the last thing we need. I understand what your saying but, don’t see it as a viable solution. Your taking something that’s broke and given it to someone unfit to fix it or piece it back together. Our current economic crisis needs to be fixed by the government, and governing the banks would give the the government even more power. Private banks who are harder to take loans from, and a Federal Reserve that can’t keep printing money like there’s no tomorrow are the key to fixing economy. The Federal Reserve should have a cap on it, no money that comes out of there will ever be worth its face value. Loans are given out to people who can’t afford them because they know these people will default on them at a later date. Banks just need to sift through the uncivilized loans being given out like candy. Debt is carried out by those who allow it to be and those who have it. Holding every bank in this country responsible for loans, and mortgage for closures. Would you give a handgun to a baby? But, letting the government control this problem is very badly represented…it would be a horrible decision. I mean look at our national debt, $10 trillion? I don’t think the government should have any control over it. Any type of socialism is no good.

I am not torn on the subject at all. The government has NO business inserting itself into the management policies of private industry. This is not a subject that should be debated.

The U.S. Constitution does not allow this. It’s wrong, and it’s unconstitutional.

Absolutely not, the government has enough control over our lives that they don’t need to have any control in our financial records and bank transactions.
A lot of the problems that we are facing are a result of Bill Clinton telling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to give loans to people who would have never qualified otherwise, and that the government would help Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if the loans foreclosed.
Which is what is happening now, with the failure of these banks, and if the original 800 billion didn’t fix the problem what makes Obama think that another 800 million, almost 2 trillion dollars is going to fix the problem.
The government has enough control over our lives why should we allow them to have control over our banking as well?

Well, it shouldn’t allow them to create the money we use. It is Congress’s power to coin our money and regulate it’s value, not banksters.

i say hold them accountable. Let the banks that gave these loans fail, and be replaced by banks with less nefarious business practices. No bailouts. Same goes for the people that defaulted on their loans (wich up till about 100 years ago was an offense that you would get prison time for)

mo

The Democrats are using this crisis to take everything else. This country is going down the toilet when most of it’s citizens have voted themselves the Treasury.

no and I opposed the idea when GWB bought all that over-priced stock in the banks but opposing it did nothing to stop it.