THE LANGUAGE OF THE INSIDERS (OF THE INNER PARTY?)

Get your Newspeak/Doublethink translation helmets on, folks. This one's gonna make your brains hurt (and then it'll get your blood boiling). The Financial Times reports (H/T Yves) that according to a senior Obama administration official:

Strong banks will be allowed to repay bail-out funds they received from the US government but only if such a move passes a test to determine whether it is in the national economic interest.

Do me a favor and read that one more time. You see what I see? The banks "will be allowed" to repay the money we doled out to keep them afloat in the wake of their endless irresponsible and fraudulent moves over the past decade. And then there's the other loaded phrase in there: only if paying back those "loans" is deemed to be "in the national economic interest," by some unnamed tester of the "move."

Wow. In other words, the Crack(pot) Economic Team of Timmy, Benny, Larry & friends will determine unilaterally whether the Insiders they propped up the first time around have to pay back what they owe. If they determine it's in the nation's economic interest. But after the events of the last year, don't we already know what they define as "in the national economic interest"?

There's more here:

“Our general objective is going to be what is good for the system,” the senior official said. “We want the system to have enough capital.” His comments come as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and other relatively strong banks are pressing to be allowed to repay their bail-out funds.

Oh, where to begin? First of all, it makes complete sense that the Administration-that-talks-big-but-does-nothing would use the words of the big banks. I'm sure Goldman & Morgan are just clamoring, champing at the proverbial bit, to please, please, PLEASE be allowed to give back all the money they've received. If only the meanies in the government would let them.

Then, look at the language this "senior official" used: "good for the system." "We want the system to have enough capital." What system is this, I ask? The system that 99.99% of us toil under, or the system that has looted the U.S. Treasury? Small detail, hate to belabor it. Anyway, moving along:

The official, meanwhile, said banks that had plenty of capital and had demonstrated an ability to raise fresh capital from the market should in principle be able to repay government funds. But the judgment would be made in the context of the wider economic interest. He said the government had three basic tests. It needed first to “make sure the system is stable.” Second, to not create “incentives for more deleveraging which would deepen the recession.” Third, to make sure the system had enough capital to “provide credit to support the recovery.”

Look at all that linguistic gobbledeegook. Take out all the double talk and you're left with this: Geithner & Summers will make the banks pay back the money when they decide it's right. And if they decide the time isn't right, then it isn't. Move along.

There's nothing more at work here. And finally:

The debate over the respective funding needs of stronger and weaker banks comes as the Obama administration confronts deep political resistance to any further authorisation of federal funds to bail out the sector. On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, told ABC that while some of the country’s biggest banks “are going to need resources,” the administration would not need to obtain more funding from Congress.

Exactly. So whattaya do? Let them keep the "loans" they're just dying to repay.