From CNN's Jack Cafferty

The idea of nationalizing struggling U.S. banks is starting to pick up steam, even among some Republicans.

Some in Congress favor nationalizing the banking system.

Senator Lindsey Graham tells the Financial Times that many of his colleagues, including Senator John McCain, agree that nationalization of some banks should be "on the table." He says many people think it just doesn't make sense to keep throwing good money after bad when it comes to institutions like Citibank and Bank of America. Graham says people shouldn't get caught up on the word "nationalization" that we can't keep funding what he calls "zombie" banks without the public taking control.

Several people, including President Obama himself, have pointed out that's what the Japanese did, and they never really got credit flowing. The president has said he's leaning more toward the "Swedish model" – where they nationalized the banks and then auctioned them off once they were cleaned up.

The administration is opposed to nationalization in principle. Treasury Secretary Geithner has said "governments are terrible managers of bad assets", but the way things are going there may be no choice.

In fact, we are already on the road to nationalization when you consider how much money the government has already dumped into this nation's banks. According to the Treasury Department - about 400 banks in 47 states have gotten government aid since the program started in October.

And when the banks begin to report first quarter earnings in a few weeks, the decision may be made for us.

Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. to nationalize its banks?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Two of the Big Three American automakers are holding out their hands again for more of your taxpayer dollars.

Chrysler will discontinue the Dodge Durango, PT Cruiser and Chrysler Aspen.

General Motors and Chrysler say they need another $21.6 billion to stay afloat, this is in addition to the more than $17 billion they received a couple months ago. The companies have both put out plans for how they'll restructure in order to survive. I thought they were supposed to have already done that.

G.M. says it will cut 47,000 more workers, close 5 more plants in North America and cut half of its brands - Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer and Saab - leaving them with only Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC. The company also says it's making headway in its talks with the United Auto Workers union and bondholders to find more ways to cut costs. Chrysler says it will cut another 3,000 jobs and discontinue 3 models - the Dodge Durango, PT Cruiser and Chrysler Aspen.

Meanwhile, this all puts the Obama administration in a tricky spot. Either they give the money and hope that the car companies don't come back asking for more in a few months. Or they say "no", which will probably force GM and Chrysler to declare bankruptcy. Both companies pointed out that the cost of a bankruptcy reorganization would be a whole lot steeper than their most recent loan requests.

The White House says it's reviewing the automakers' proposals and insists that "more will be required" from all parties involved to turn around their prospects.

The third Detroit company – Ford Motors – posted its biggest loss ever in the fourth quarter, but insists it can survive without government loans.

Here’s my question to you: Should General Motors and Chrysler be given additional taxpayer money?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST