Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Who Will Stop the Banks?

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted January 23, 2008.


No Dem candidate will say what Kucinich would have said: Bankers will steal from the public unless the government holds them accountable.
Robert Scheer

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Robert Scheer

The Tortured Law on Torture
How has our government managed to justify one of the most egregious assaults on the rule of law?
May 14, 2008

Battle of the Hawks
Both McCain and Clinton have shown a dangerously cavalier attitude towards the option of a nuclear strike against Iran.
May 7, 2008

No Country for Old Men
McCain's age matters; especially if he picks his running mate from the crazy wing of the Republican Party.
Apr 30, 2008

More stories by Robert Scheer

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It was smart of the top Democrats to cut presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich out of that South Carolina debate, where they lamely attempted to deal with the dire consequences of the banking meltdown without confronting the banks. They made all the proper concerned noises about millions of folks losing their retirement savings and homes, but none was willing to say what Kucinich would have said: Bankers are crooks who will steal from the public unless the government holds them accountable.

How do I know Kucinich would have said that? Because I interviewed him for the Los Angeles Times back when he was mayor of Cleveland and the banks foreclosed on his city after he refused to sell the public power plant. Others can talk a populist line, but Kucinich lived it. He was forced out of office that time, but voters realized 10 years later that Kucinich had been right. Thanks to the public power alternative that Kucinich refused to sacrifice, Cleveland had cheap power, and he was elected to the Ohio Legislature and then to Congress as his reward.

I bring this up now not to push a Kucinich presidential candidacy, which seems quite forlorn given the power of big money and big media to set the stage for permissible political debate, but rather to hold out a yardstick for measuring the "progressivism" of the top three Democrats.

Sure, they all would be preferable to their likely Republican alternatives, although Sen. John McCain has been far better than all three Democrats on both campaign-finance reform and taking on the defense contractors who have been bleeding us dry since 9/11. I got a little worried when Sen. Hillary Clinton said she could do the best job in confronting McCain on national security; she is shameless in throwing money at war profiteers, while McCain has held the line on some of the more egregiously wasteful military expenditures.

With a military budget that has more than doubled since 9/11, soaking up trillions of dollars in obligations for future generations, it is stupid to argue about whether the Democrats or Republicans would spend more on needed domestic programs, because the money for those programs will not be available. Kucinich was the one candidate on the Democratic side willing to do what Rep. Ron Paul has in the Republican debates -- challenge the phony patriotism of ripping off the taxpayers for war-fighting expenditures in Iraq and elsewhere, leaving us less secure.

While Paul is very good, indeed the best candidate, on the waste of taxpayer dollars on foreign military ventures, as is expected from a libertarian, he is hostile to the need for government regulation to control the excesses of the marketplace. And it is those excesses that are at the root of the financial chaos we have visited upon the world.

As with the Enron scandal, which was the direct result of the bipartisan-supported deregulation of the energy industry, so too the subprime mortgage and easy-credit scandals now upon us. For decades, banking lobbyists have pushed through legislation freeing them to wreak havoc on our lives while they profit from lucrative personal bailouts even as their own companies suffer.

Deregulation became the mantra covering corporate theft in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and it is amazing that not one of her interlocutors at the South Carolina debate asked Sen. Clinton about her husband's signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which permitted banks, stockbrokers and insurance companies to merge, overturning one of the major regulatory achievements of the New Deal.

More important, both political parties have refused to place any serious restraints on the interest charged by banks and think it perfectly normal, indeed healthful, for the economy that folks are given home loans or credit cards at unrealistically low interest rates calculated to soar after an introductory phase. What a sorry scene to see the top Democratic contenders unable to agree that some interest rates below 30 percent may rise to the level of usury.

For those unfamiliar with the moral crime of usury, believing it's only a legal crime if loan sharks threaten your knee caps, let me quote from Ezekiel 22:12 of the King James Bible: " ... Thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God."

Not being overly familiar with Scripture, I am grateful to Kucinich, a product of a stern Catholic upbringing, for having informed me, more than a quarter of a century ago, that the bankers, and the politicians who service them, are courting the wrath of God -- even if they fool the voters.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: banks, election08

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
All-mighty banks
Posted by: solitariodude on Jan 23, 2008 4:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are only powerful so long as fools continue to put their hard earned money into them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All-mighty banks Posted by: cajel2
» RE: All-mighty banks Posted by: solitariodude
CORRECTION: Who Stops the PRIVATE CENTRAL BANKS ?
Posted by: LookOut on Jan 23, 2008 9:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of which the "Federal Reserve" Corp established 1913 is the largest and most abusive sham in the history of monopoly banking under a parasite corporate criminal ruling class.

The other banks simply take their cue from organized corporate crime central at the “Fed” and its owners who rig Washington, the MSM and “education”.

It might interest inquiring minds to know that by far the founders prime enemy were private central bankers that had dictatorial control of England and Europe. Corporate Fascism (then called the “Money Changers” or “Money Power”) was the reason the founders fought the Revolution. Answer this question well and you will have the 2nd American Revolution that should have never been lost at the 1st place...


“I believe that [private cartel] banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency… the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered… The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of [private] lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
President Thomas Jefferson (3rd president on predatory monopolist power - 1743-1826)

“The inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money, permanently, out of the hands of George III and the international [cartel] bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.”
Benjamin Franklin (American founder on the chief enemy of American Independence. 1706-1790)

“History records that money changers [i.e. cartel bankers] have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance.”
President James Madison (4th president as acknowledged “father” of the U.S. Constitution and a founder of America on abuses of global banking cartel money power. 1751-1836)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

do you think mr scheer...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 23, 2008 11:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that you should push Kucinich's presidential campaign instead of succumbing to the
"the power of big money and big media [setting] the stage for permissible political debate" that you seem to dislike...

if all the "kucinich has the right ideas, but..." people who claim they want real change and real accountability (from michal moore to you to any number of semi-anonymous posters here and on other sites) would just grow a backbone and support him i think he could have a REAL chance...these are the PRIMARIES after all!

i wish i had pulled the exact quote from a poster at aol who said something along the lines of...if all those doubters would get on board, kucinich could possibly go from being "un-electable" to being UNBEATABLE...kucinich is only "un-electable" because the media says so and so far they still don't own our votes, at least not yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who restrains power?
Posted by: Erik1968 on Jan 24, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's interesting that the Ron Pauls of the world see the government as the greatest threat, while the Dennis Kuciniches see the corporations as the greatest threat. I really feel like strengthened separation of powers and campaign finance reforms CAN make our government better.

But who can stop the corporations? It seems to me that ONLY governments have the power to restrain them. And haven't the same seperation of powers allowed the corporations more power than governments?

There needs to be a way to give every American food, clothing, medical care, and shelter. There needs to be a way to restrain corporations. I worry that huge beurocracies aren't the best route to solving these problems.

But what other choice do we have?

The banks have been playing this game for years. They thought they could just keep raising our minimum payments forever. They can't! How can corporations make a profit if every American spends every cent on credit card payments?? Who can BUY anything?

What we need is a radical economic stimulus. Like giving every American $5000. We could pay off our credit cards (partly), there would be massive inflation, solving most of the rest of our (meaning working Americans) debt worries, and the only losers would be the rich.

Which is why it won't happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Loans, not gifts Posted by: BruceLHill
» RE: Who restrains power? Posted by: Trazom
Mr. Kucinich is really smart
Posted by: zepher on Jan 24, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His campaign is being "disappeared" by all the bad guys out there that have caused so much damage, grief and death. They hate and fear him for the honesty he speaks. That leaves Congress to control the banks and it needs to do it's job in both HOUSE AND SENATE.

The sensible thing to do would be to straighten out the banks that have duped so many people. Put a cap on interest rates, stabilize the housing market and do commonsense repair to the damage irresponsibility has caused. Pelosi and Reid are cyphers, they do not represent we the people. Congress needs to get to work on taking care of my country instead of pandering to the dying empire of neo-conservatism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kucinich is a good man regardless of religion
Posted by: nfamous on Jan 24, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been working for banks most of my career and I can honestly say they are all run by scum-sucking bastards who care nothing about humanity as a whole. They are literally addicted to profit and there is no treatment I know of for that except the twelve steps. Of course you can't admit powerlessness to a god when your god is power.

This is not a religious issue. I'm agnostic and this issue can be debated and solved without invoking god in any of its forms. People have to stop relying on religion as a feelgood to solve their problems. It might inspire some people but it produces inaction in the majority who sit on their laurels waiting on the rapture or some other biblical event that is never going to occur.

Dennis Kucinich is a good man because he does what's right, not because he was raised Catholic. If he was an atheist he would still be a good man. The problems we have will not be solved by Christians who would rather "let God sort them out" rather than fighting in the here and now for our very survival on the only planet we have. In layman's terms, religion makes people lazy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you want to fight the bankers?
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jan 24, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really quite simple. Get your dollars out of those negative-interest bearing accounts and the stock market. Buy physical gold and silver and hold it. (Don't invest in paper.) That'll scare the wits out of most bankers. Gold and silver are real money. They can't deal with real money (except to engage in price suppression schemes).

Buying precious metals is the most direct vote against the political and financial interests in Washington. The rest is blather.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm with R. Scheer –– worried.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 24, 2008 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Robert Scheer:

"I got a little worried when Sen. Hillary Clinton said she could do the best job in confronting McCain on national security; she is shameless in throwing money at war profiteers, while McCain has held the line on some of the more egregiously wasteful military expenditures."

I have become VERY worried about Hillary as president. She will be a continuation of the Clinton dynasty that helped to deregulate telecommunications and the banking/securities industries, and thus set the stage for abuses under Bush, including the MSM being owned by a handful of conservative corporations and the worldwide economic meltdown we're suffering today. We do not need any more of that, so we do not need Hillary. (And if that's not enough, just check out the shady characters bankrolling her campaign, like Murdoch, Hsu, a guy named Alan Quasha, and a bunch of other shady characters.)

As for Kucinich? Underfunded due to lack of exposure by the MSM (although he could and did raise over $1 million on the internet IN ONE DAY!), cut out of democratic debates even though he was a certified candidate and an excellent debator, and doomed to be marginalized, in part because he didn't "look presidential." (I'm not making this up; the MSM really does think like this...)

Notice I said Kucinich WAS a certified candidate? I just heard that he has announced that he will drop out of the race. Score that as half-way to "mission accomplished" for the MSM; when they finally freeze out Edwards, too, their mission will be complete – and we Dems will be left with one of two clay pidgeons for the Republicans to pick off. (If Hillary's the nominee, the right will be screaming, "a WOMAN Commander in Chief?!" and if it's Obama, they'll be harping on his lack of experience.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing will change unless the public notices and cares
Posted by: arieden on Jan 24, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looking at the postings above I see a common theme - the candidates don't focus on what we (on AlterNet) care about.
Healthcare is an example of an issue for which the reference framework has shifted. More people truly care about the issue and focus on it than say 15 years ago. People can actually talk about a single payer system now without everyone having a panic attack (some still do - but not nearly as many now).
Sadly, the candidates will blow off the difficult issues if they know the voters will let them get away with it - which is almost all of the time.
The challenge is reframing the framework for these issues so that people pay attention and truly care about them. Until now corporate interests have been the ones to set the framework for our most pressing issues and the public gets brainwashed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes
Posted by: RobbieUMD on Jan 24, 2008 4:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are the man, Mr. Scheer, telling it like it is, as usual.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Jan 24, 2008 7:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not a surprise that this is happening. After all of this economic abuse, Americans still are not listening to John Edwards, who had it right the first time, and still does have it right with the populist message. Kucinich is brave and right also.

But voters still go for the corporatized leaders....when will they get it? We need to really bust up these cartels for good and that's not what any of these conciliatory candidates such as Clinton and Obama are talking about.

We need to do something more. We need retribution in the form of increased taxes on them and then we should build affordable housing with that revenue.

And we should fund mandatory courses in education about personal finance and about political chicanery and sophistry. Since we long ago silenced the protesters with the corporatocracy/lootacracy, we have no voices - and when we do have someone brave enough to speak up - he is derided as "mad". Hell, I am mad and intend to stay mad - I don't know what has happened to collective minds in America. It's enough to make you sit back and say you get what you deserve since we are not a nation of thinkers and protesters anymore. The Facist state will continue to survive as long as we don't listen to those who tell the painful truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CommonDreamer Posted by: lenioui
» RE: CommonDreamer Posted by: CommonDreamer
THE ROMAN EMPIRE HAD AN INFLATION RATE OF ONE PERCENT
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 24, 2008 10:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
per century. That is 6 percent over 600 years. They had lenders. Wealthy Romans were know to borrow enough gold for a party that at todays exchange rates would amount to millions. But, the bankers, lenders never lent money to businesses. If we didn't have money lenders in business we wouldn't have these banking panics. We have gotten it wrong. We suffer for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bank Robbers
Posted by: Richard House on Jan 25, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My great grandfather was once a bank robber. Always loved him for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism, Binge Lending and Spillage
Posted by: cognitorex on Jan 25, 2008 12:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the big boys say in Alcoholics Anonymous, "I've spilled more booze than you've even thought of drinking." Likewise the shear waste and uneconomic spillage in US capitalistic practice is an unseen, mind boggling sum of money.
Having personally inked $$ billions of loan deals and met folks destined for both the White House and for jail the most important thing I would like each voter (and economist) to know is:
"The gross dollar value of the rank waste and economic inefficiencies in 'big boy' capitalism is more than sufficient to many times fund both Social Security and Medicare shortfalls."
When the corporate and financial types declaim that there isn't enough money to pay reasonable taxes and/or to provide a broad safety net for the disenfranchised folks in our society tell them to shut their greedy yaps. Offer them the following deal.
"You make sure the poor can eat and get medical necessities and we'll let you continue to take a small bite out of all the capital flows that wash around financial centers, including embezzlement like bonuses and commissions for your daily toil and for your latest bubble-like ponzi-smacking get-rich fiasco(s). But, be aware of our recognition that the Pound Sterling and the Euro, currency representatives for the full-out 'Socialism' of Europe, are hands down taking the Dollar to the cleaners. Significant change is needed and the broom is in your hands."
"For the moment!"

tags: banks, lending, cognitorex, sub prime , social security, Medicare

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Makes me wonder.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 25, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is, the last set of new federal laws to do with bankruptcy and deregulation of banks was adopted so soon prior to the bank meltdown, ensuring that those who have been conned by lenders cannot protect themselves in bankruptcy.

The fact that subprime lenders could talk people into paying rent (under the lie of ownership) for the homes that banks could not sell, knowing that when the crunch came they could choose either to foreclose now or continue to 'rent' if necessary, indicates a level of fraud that boggles the mind.

I also love the commonplace that Americans have the highest level of home ownership. Unless your mortgage is paid, who holds the deed? So who owns the country? You better believe it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The True leeches of Society..are the Bankers..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 27, 2008 10:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bankers are the true leeches of society they produce nothing but debt, misery and war..!

An they do it with other peoples money bankers do not earn money..they manipulate it but they earn no money..interest earns money but not bankers they just take it..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fire The Fed then Pay Off the National Debt !
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 28, 2008 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reregulating an antiquated system is only a Band-aid on a broken leg.

The debt-based fractional banking system can survive only with ever-increasing debt, but the consumer is tapped out and business is cutting back. With no new debt being written, a tsunami of bad loans, systemic risk model failure and mistrust between banks, the die is cast, a meltdown that will shake our country to its core.

The debt-based fractional banking system needs ever-more goods to increase the debt to survive. We now know that this means environmental catastrophe. What is needed is a government-backed currency based on the economy, not on ever-increasing debt, a "greenback" system.

Ask yourself one question: Why do we have a National Debt, costing trillions of interest over time, when the government could legally create the money to pay it off ?

"Money as Debt" on You Tube: The video they don't want you to see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesse James
Posted by: RedNeckRed on Feb 1, 2008 5:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now! We all now know why he went down as a hero in American history. The People demanded it in spite of the press. We should not sell out our ancestors as being short sighted. They always knew who the real enemy was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fractional reserve banking as economic parasitism
Posted by: vzn on Feb 1, 2008 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
strange that in a massive meltdown that soros is calling the most significant in 60 years, two words are almost invisible in the media: "predatory lending"

more details, see a paper I wrote called "fractional reserve banking as economic
parasitism"

endorsed by two phd economists. printed in nexus
magazine, 60k world circulation. #1 top downloaded
economics paper. used by economics
teacher in australia as standard classroom material.

more info on request.


"fractional reserve banking as economic parasitism"



recent supporting material:



The Shock Doctrine: Naomi Klein on the Rise of Disaster Capitalism


Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions


John Perkins on "The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption"


Video, senator/pres candidate Dennis Kucinich at last years 2005 Monetary Reform Conference


money as debt video by Grignon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]