Now, however, we really are approaching a day of reckoning, at least by the administration's own time-table. If we haven't arrived at the end game, we are at least at the beginning of the end game.

For my part, I don't think we're at the beginning of anything until a formal recognition that current policy isn't working as well as expected is apparent to everyone in the current administration. Using "The Miracle Worker" as a metaphor, when Obama's brain trust can fully recognize the characters of "this isn't working out" when signed in their collective hands as the "Too Big to Fail" banks continue to hemorrhage funds in plain sight is the time when I would safely state that we are at the definitive "beginning of the end game." As long as they can't see the forest for the trees, wedded to economic expediency rather than fact, I'm quite sure yet another example of dazzling "spin" will be trotted out for the Great Unwashed to explain away the failure of the stress tests quite nicely and I will read all about it all over the web with very little criticism and much adulation.

That the five largest US banks a turning a profit, it would still not be good news. Banks don't create any wealth. Thay just skim profits from those who need their money to creat wealth. The GNP actually fell last quarter. So if Citi, Goldman, BoA and company are turning a larger profit, then it means they're skimming even more unearned wealth out of an already stressed system.

My father, a tenured professor of mathematics and physics, has this old joke he loves to tell; If you ask a mathematician "what is 1 plus 1 ?" he will say "2". If you ask an accountant "What is 1 plus 1 ?" the accountant will say "What do you want it to be?" When they dropped the mark to market rule it was just the most viable change in the accounting rule. The banks have gotten carte blanche to play fast and loose with the books. So a bank that was failing 6 months ago because of all the toxic assets is now all of a sudden has record profits. This stinks of cooked books.

Who can or would believe these banks' numbers?

It's like P.T. Barnum, banker.

while we're hearing there's good news in spite of the bad news... once you've destroyed any credibility (which, to my mind, is the position of these large banks at this time) people would be stupid to believe what you say based upon your reckoning.

until outside auditors look at these banks using rules that the rest of us follow - they're worthless, even if they're not.

For decades now we've had pro-business pro-rich policies that have shafted folks who work for a living.

- offshoring without limit.

- declining benefits, declining full time jobs, increase of contracting

and temps.

- credit card interest rates, no limits.

- soaring health care costs, declining coverage.

- declining financial regulation.

- increasing the difficulty of unionizing.

- stagnant wages.

- soaring tuition.

- giving up on the public schools.

All this shafts the folks who work for a living and rewards the top. Do that over and over and over and over and over and over and over (and over!) and what do you get?

A declining middle class, a feeble working class, and finally the so-called "death of the consumer".

The people at the top are trying to solve the wrong problem.

They can dump endless taxpayer capital into the banks BUT if the consumer is dead the banks can't recover.

Our leaders wouldn't know a pro-labor policy if it hit them over the head. The people who understood that it is necessary to support the middle and working classes at the level of policy are dead.

Now we have health care reform shelved AND the recent declaration that NAFTA won't be renegotiated to add labor and environmental protections. Great. Just what we need. Now: down the toilet we go!

Of course, you're right, jgrosch. And that's why no one is smiling. Problem solved. As always, the con isn't as interesting as the reasons why it needed to be pulled off in the first place.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the price of bank stocks these days. They go up and down every time anybody says anything. That's because nobody knows what is going to happen. There is a lot of emotion. There is a report with good news and everyone wants to think it's all going to be all right. Then some bad news and more panic.

But pity the guy who has stock in a bank like Wells Fargo that did not even want federal money, was told it was its civic duty, and now faces a take over by the feds. I hold stock in that company, and if I just hold on to it, I will not have to realize my losses. But if I get diluted by the feds, I suddenly lose money that is due not to the bank's problem, but due to the market's panic (that lowered the price beyond reality).

And when good times return, will my stock bounce back? Well it will still be diluted, but in addition, the feds can sell anytime they want to build the next bridge to nowhere. So the oversupply of stock for sale artificially increases my dilution. The feds won't pay capital gains, so there is no incentive to hold. Also, Wells pays taxes, and then the dividend (which the feds will indirectly control) goes to the feds after tax. The usual incentive to reinvest in the business is much less with the feds in control, so I lose the potential for capital appreciation. I am screwed, and I made a good investment. In fact, before all this nationalization business, I increased my stake. It was a bargain based on rational risk analysis. Who knew?

The more information that comes out, the more glaringly obvious is becomes that all the economic "fixes" the government has taken in regards to the Banks up to now has not been about addressing the economy, but rather saving the banks in their present form at taxpayer expense.

While the Banksters have highjacked our government they could care less how the economy goes, as long as they can use their insiders to save themselves.

If it were true that a lack of lending were really the heart of the issue, the government could have stepped in more aggressively to put insolvent banks into receivership, then with the backing of the US Government loaned to its hearts content until they cleaned things up and re-sold the bank (or more likely its component pieces) back to the private sector. Instead we embraked on a sham of giving money to the banks to increase lending (the PR), but the real point was that they keep the money to shore up their books so that if being able to hold the metaphorical depression gun to the head of the US economy loses its potency, they will have stolen enough taxpayer money to be out of the red.

Notice, lending has decreased substantionally from the major banks that received funds. Also notice that they changed the mark to market rules to further allow the banks to cook the books in order to continue to hide their insolvency. They are de-regulating the market even further just to maintain the illusion, because again, the point isnt the health of the economy, but saving a few major banks.

This was never about lending. It was about funnelling mindboggling amounts of taxpayer money into bank coffers because they continue to be able to get away with it. If the banks realized this would be the epic windfall of insolvency, they would have driven themselves into the ground much sooner.

I wonder if we will ever get Canidate Obama back. It felt good to believe in his middleclass populist rhetoric and that we could succeede in electing someone with that platform. President Obama continues to sell out the middleclass at every turn. Trickle Down 2.0 is in full effect, and shows no signs of slowing up.