Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Wall Street's Bailout is a Trillion-Dollar Crime Scene -- Why Aren't the Dems Doing Something About It?

By Naomi Klein, The Nation. Posted November 14, 2008.


Washington's handling of the bailout is not merely incompetent. It may well be illegal.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Naomi Klein

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The more details emerge, the clearer it becomes that Washington's handling of the Wall Street bailout is not merely incompetent. It is borderline criminal.

In a moment of high panic in late September, the U.S. Treasury unilaterally pushed through a radical change in how bank mergers are taxed -- a change long sought by the industry. Despite the fact that this move will deprive the government of as much as $140 billion in tax revenue, lawmakers found out only after the fact. According to the Washington Post, more than a dozen tax attorneys agree that "Treasury had no authority to issue the [tax change] notice."

Of equally dubious legality are the equity deals Treasury has negotiated with many of the country's banks. According to Congressman Barney Frank, one of the architects of the legislation that enables the deals, "Any use of these funds for any purpose other than lending -- for bonuses, for severance pay, for dividends, for acquisitions of other institutions, etc. -- is a violation of the act." Yet this is exactly how the funds are being used.

Then there is the nearly $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has handed out in emergency loans. Incredibly, the Fed will not reveal which corporations have received these loans or what it has accepted as collateral. Bloomberg News believes that this secrecy violates the law and has filed a federal suit demanding full disclosure.

Despite all of this potential lawlessness, the Democrats are either openly defending the administration or refusing to intervene. "There is only one president at a time," we hear from Barack Obama. That's true. But every sweetheart deal the lame-duck Bush administration makes threatens to hobble Obama's ability to make good on his promise of change. To cite just one example, that $140 billion in missing tax revenue is almost the same sum as Obama's renewable energy program. Obama owes it to the people who elected him to call this what it is: an attempt to undermine the electoral process by stealth.

Yes, there is only one president at a time, but that president needed the support of powerful Democrats, including Obama, to get the bailout passed. Now that it is clear that the Bush administration is violating the terms to which both parties agreed, the Democrats have not just the right but a grave responsibility to intervene forcefully.

I suspect that the real reason the Democrats are so far failing to act has less to do with presidential protocol than with fear: fear that the stock market, which has the temperament of an overindulged 2-year-old, will throw one of its world-shaking tantrums. Disclosing the truth about who is receiving federal loans, we are told, could cause the cranky market to bet against those banks. Question the legality of equity deals and the same thing will happen. Challenge the $140 billion tax giveaway and mergers could fall through. "None of us wants to be blamed for ruining these mergers and creating a new Great Depression," explained one unnamed Congressional aide.

More than that, the Democrats, including Obama, appear to believe that the need to soothe the market should govern all key economic decisions in the transition period. Which is why, just days after a euphoric victory for "change," the mantra abruptly shifted to "smooth transition" and "continuity."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, wall street, bailout, financial crisis, economic meltdown

Naomi Klein's latest book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
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:
Are you kidding me???
Posted by: Cowardly_lion on Nov 14, 2008 12:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why aren't the dems doing something about it? What are you baffled and confused? Our Heros the democrats aren't doing something about it, wah wah wah! The democrats sponsor these sorts of things. They LOVE to socialize things and they do it in the name of the people! hey, we're going to have to regulate how much you get to eat today....we know you don't want to eat too many meals in a day because you could get obese. Frickin' Obama voted FOR the bailout. How can you be surprised that the dems aren't doing anything?

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

» socialize things??? Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Are you kidding me??? Posted by: 2thepoint
» Bush's Ownership Society Posted by: FoonTheElder
» RE: Bush's Ownership Society Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Are you kidding me??? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Are you kidding me??? Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Are you kidding me??? Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: Are you kidding me??? Posted by: helenwheels
Another Great Naomi Klein Article ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 14, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And she poses the questions that the Democrats had better have answers to or their mandate and their legitimacy will be very short lived indeed. The up-swelling against the Paulson Bailout was truly amazing and was energized by people from across all political and social boundaries. Already we are seeing another uprising against the salaries and bonuses of these banks.

The fact is the powers that be are kicking the can down the road while their clients, the banks, pocket hundreds of billions of dollars to offset their gambling debts in the derivatives markets. The problem for them is that the American people are catching on fast. Obama and company had better not play fast and loose with the public's business or they will lose their hole card ... the public's trust. Houses depreciating, jobs going away, food still going up, services being cut ... the public is in no mood for bull shit.

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

» RE: What New Party? Posted by: oregoncharles
» C4 Posted by: thekidde
» RE: I agree cowardly lion & mmckinl Posted by: racetoinfinity
» they will do whatever they want... Posted by: rafaeltoral
Plunder
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 14, 2008 2:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One would hope....one would pray....that once the American people realize what has been done to their country by these people - Democrat and Republican - a radical change would follow next. We're talkin' revolution here, campers.

Naomi Klein is right. But she's always right, isn't she? The last thing in the world that we need from the most corrupt administration in history is a "smooth transition". The first order of business for President Obama should be a massive effort of the part of his Department of Justice to see to it that the bastards who did this to our country are sent to prison for the rest of their lives. Nothing less will be satisfactory. Nothing.

The Grand Old Party Is Over

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

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

» RE: Plunder Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Plunder Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Plunder Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Plunder and more... Posted by: Knowmad
» Knowmad.... Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: The problem is... Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Plunder Posted by: cwilsondrum
What we really need...
Posted by: beyondgreen on Nov 14, 2008 2:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WE need to be bailed out of our dependence on foreign oil. Nothing has done more damage to our economy and society.The last 168 BILLION DOLLAR round of stimulus checks did NADA for our economy. We must not as a nation forget the role the high cost of our dependence on foreign fuel played in the demise of our automakers. The exorbitant cost of gas the past year has done serious damage to our economy and society. Jobs and homes have been lost at a record rate. The increased cost of production and shipping of every consumer good imaginable have been passed on to the consumer.What OPEC has in store for our future is not pretty. We need to take lessons from our mistakes.WE also need to get out from under the grip our dependence on fore gin oil has on us. Why not take some of these billions and invest in America becoming energy independent. Driving an electric car would cost the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon. The electricity could be generated by solar or wind power. Green technology would create millions of badly needed new jobs. What America needs is a green revolution. It is time for us to move forward with alternative energy. I just read Jeff Wilson's new book The Manhattan Project of 2009. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is concerned about the downward spiral of our economy and it's effect on our society and would like to see our country become energy independent!
www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

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

» RE: What we really need... Posted by: ImpeachKingBushII
Because Capitalism = Extortion
Posted by: dgiVista.org on Nov 14, 2008 3:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
limited shareholder liability, bankruptcy laws that disadvantage real people, no meaningful threats to corporate charters for bad/psychotic/anti-human behaviour, heaps of pro-corporate politicians in office.

essentially, capitalism extorts society: bail them out or they crash our economic society with their "failures"!

Politics, Re-Spun

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

Obama & "Dems" for the FASCIST MOB
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Nov 14, 2008 3:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"That gives Obama a window to disregard the calls for a seamless transition and do the hard stuff first..."

Yet more red herring and pipe-dream BS from Naomi Klein who promotes the absurd notion that random "disaster capitalism" is the culprit behind all our woes. (That’s "capitalism" that cannot and DOES NOT EXIST under FASCISM without free markets let alone anything like real democracy).

Obama was paid for and brought to the circus that is Washington by Organized Corporate Crime. To be specific: the very Monopoly Corporate Crime State that runs the west and all its obscene genocide kill zones at 9/11 "war on terror" with its FISA spy regime. A murderous joke as phony as the manufactured crash extorted onto the American people by the usual Wall Street suspects.

America has one chance and one chance only:

That is to bust the entire Monopoly Corporate Crime State wide open by abolishing its choke points at the private Ponzi trap "Federal Reserve" Corp (not federal, no reserves whatever) and at DC where virtually all 3 branches of governance are predator flunkies for the corporate crime ruling class that employs them.

The government and its criminal overclass should have been brought down after the massive coverup at 9/11. The longer tyranny remains, the worse it becomes.

Our founders fought the same grotesque forces in their time and predicted this moment would again come in no uncertain words.


“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of [private cartel] lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”

“I believe that 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 - . (In a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, 1802. Published 1809. 1743-1826)


“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 (the 4th founding president and “father” of the U.S. Constitution. 1751-1836)

“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 bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.”
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN (a founder of America. 1706-1790)

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

» EXCELLENT COMMENT Posted by: lefty010
» RE: Obama & "Dems" for the FASCIST MOB Posted by: login@bugmenot.com
» uh...dude Posted by: lefty010
» RE: uh...dude Posted by: tinansim
Don Quixote
Posted by: Don Quixote on Nov 14, 2008 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations Mister_PsyOps, very good post and quotes, it is a pleasure to see there are more and more unbrainwashed, well-informed, real patriots.

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

» RE: Don Quixote Posted by: Beck
Fascism is not Socialism
Posted by: Ray Duray on Nov 14, 2008 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey Mister_Psyops,

I really love your passion, but I think you may have your history a bit wrong. You say: Our founders fought the same grotesque forces in their time...

Well, they fought King George III who was something of a self-interested and greedy fellow in some respects, but in the matter of our American Revolutionary War it was mainly fought by ingrates who were exceptionally resentful about taxes being imposed by the British authorities in order to recoup expenses incurred by the Crown fighting the French and Indian War of 1763. If you really get down to the brass tacks on this, this nation was founded by a bunch of Scots-Irish attempting to welsh on a fair debt that they didn't want to pay. There's a lesson here for the way the elites run this country to this day.

***
I do concur with you that what we are witnessing in Washington is the rise of Fascism in our system. As Mussolini pointed out, this is the combination of corporate and state power. This is a very good description of the Bush Administration.

***
As far as your criticism of Naomi Wolf regarding her theory of "disaster capitalism", I'm finding her argument more-or-less compelling. The only caveat I'd suggest is that instead of a natural disaster such as the Boxing Day tsunami creating an opportunity for abusing the local population in the matter of our present financial crisis it has been all too predicable and well forecast by many astute observers since the malevolent Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed in 1999, permitting vast concentrations of unregulated speculation unlike anything seen since the Glass-Steagall Act last curbed the marauders of Wall Street with their infinite ability to create scams and swindles on the public. Thus what we are witnessing today is not a disaster leading to capitalist takings, but rather malice aforethought in legislation and de-regulation leading to a fascist looting of the public treasury by a criminal elite.

How some individuals are so dumb as to call this socialism when it is the exact opposite is testimonial to how effective propagandists like Limbaugh, Hannity and Palin are at turning their followers into a seething and resentful tribe of blithering idiots with no intellectual merit whatsoever.

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

» Great insight Ray Posted by: thekidde
» RE: How Right You Are! Posted by: desidid
» RE: Fascism is not Socialism Posted by: helenwheels
» One correction Posted by: ReallyBearish
Nothing Will Happen
Posted by: FAITHCARR on Nov 14, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What ever we have "done" in the past 8 years has not changed anything one iota.

Learn sustainability, horde cash and gold.

And if you have any better ideas, other than talky talk outrage, let me know.

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

» RE: Nothing Will Happen Posted by: OneJest
They are doing something about it!
Posted by: muktuk on Nov 14, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why Aren't the Dems Doing Something About It?

They are doing something about it!

They're driving the get-away car!

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

» BINGO!!!...LOL...n/m Posted by: lefty010
» RE: BINGO!!!...LOL...n/m Posted by: helenwheels
Bloomberg makes a challenge
Posted by: OneJest on Nov 14, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, you know things are interesting when Bloomberg News files a federal suit. I think I would take this one step further and say that this bailout, this "giveaway", is illegal. There is no way to know what the bailout money is being used for. Precisely why it should have never been given away. They should nationalize every bank or financial institution they have bailed out. People can call it socialism. I call it punishing mediocrity and making a statement. Obama may be the most left leaning president we've had since Jimmy Carter, but I have many doubts. Like two puppets in the hands of a psychopath, those who make up our government (Democrat and Republican) smash violently back and forth into each other. They fear that which they can't control - the market. That's why we need more regulation and oversight. Someone needs to put the psychopaths in jail and implement a scared straight program for bankers.

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

Dems Are Paid by Wall Street
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Nov 14, 2008 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like in 2004, the Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates are not being truthful about the fake war on terror, a false flag attack of 9/11, the scam of the Federal Reserve Bank and the easily hackable electronic voting machines and central tabulators.

The reason is that the Democrats have been completely complicit in all of the criminal actions and war crimes committed by Bush. If they blow the whistle, then they will be implicated.

Guess who the biggest campaign contributor to George W. Bush is? MBNA, a big credit card company. MBNA wrote the legislation that radically changed the bankruptcy laws in the US.
Predatory lending, which used to be the province of criminal loan sharks, is now the norm in the lending industry in the US.
Today's banking crisis is the THIRD trillion dollar plus US-caused financial meltdown in the last twenty years.
Each one of these crises came into being through the same basic mechanism...the fraudulent over-valuing of financial assets by Wall Street - with a "wink and a nod" (and sometimes a lot more) from the White House and Congress. The fraudulently valued assets stimulate the economy, impart the illusion of health and then, inevitably, the fraud goes too far and the whole house of card comes painfully crashing back to earth.
The White House stood in the way of any state prosecuting federal banks and mortgage companies for predatory lending. They actually used a portion of the enabling act creating the US Comptroller of the Currency to preempt the regulation and prosecution of these banks for fraudulent loan activities. This is why Eliot Spitzer was politically assassinated. He wrote an editorial in the Washington Post three weeks before his assassination accusing the White House of preventing any state Attorney General from prosecuting these criminal activities. Of course, the mainstream media did not report the actual reason that this politician’s sexual indiscretions were reported so immediately and excessively.

The mainstream media never reported on Bush planting in the White House press corps a gay escort, Johnny Gannon. Gannon based on the Secret Service records of visits to the White House visited the White House over 200 times and stayed overnight at least two times.

Go to my website, www.911insidejob.net and read many articles and watch videos on the well planned takedown of the US dollar by the Bush White House and the Federal Reserve Bank.

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

Thank YOU..
Posted by: Captainmagic on Nov 14, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Naomi is just telling it how it was always going to be.....

YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE HANDED YOUR ASSESS ON A PLATE.

Change like the change in 2006 election...yeah right!!!!

Captain OUT

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

Who's responsible - Neo Cons,Clintons and their DLC
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 14, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets start back about 28 yrs shall we? To the Roll out of the new Fangled 'Feudalism' economic stratedgy called 'Trickle Down'. We saw first hand it's destructive effects near the end of the '80's- Thanks to McCains buddy Keating. the Clintons NEVER did anything to recify the situation- they not only pushed the problem (inequity) into the future, they aided the Highjackers like Gramm and his Deregulation legislation. Least we forget it was Clinton who signed away our Jobs and Prosperity with the NAFTA disembowelment act.
If you want to Know WHO is respsonble for this well foreseen and well executed Downing of the American Superpower, look not only to the Neo Cons, but to the DLC. If you consider yourself a 'Reagan Democrat' You have NO idea what it means to be a Democrat. Reagn was a Union buster, a cheap labor advocate (Human labor is a commodity best purchased at rock bottom prices), And Bill Agreed. This was a well developed idea to lower standards of American Workers so we could compete in a Third World type of Global economy- instead of raising the third world to Ours. and who benefitted ...THE CORPS!!!
In Hindsight did you consider why the Dem base never came out to work their asses off for Gore or Kerry...We could smell the Corp whore stench a mile away. We voted, but we Had to hold our noses!What is the DLC, What is the goal of the 'Third Way' To serve and Protect the Corp agenda, NOT US!
Frankly I couldn't tell the difference between Hillary and McCain during their Votes in the Seante or their tactics on the Campaign...Because they are Co Workers!
The DLC is just working the other side of the street, but are allied with the same Neo Con ideology which has destroyed OUR COUNTRY! War mongering Profiteers dressed up in a Blue pantsuit, or tie....SOB's infiltated Our Party when the 'Moral Majority' Infected the Repugs in the '80's, Same Treasonous Agenda, Tactics and goals!
It's not just the Republican party who needs to clean House, so do the Democrats.We need to rid ourselves of the insideous disease called the DLC.Haven't they gotten the Hint that they can NOT seal the Deal with REAL Dems...Gore, Kerry,Edwards, and Hillary LOSERS!The Clintons and the DLC are the WORST thing to have happened to the Democratic Party and thus the Ameircan Worker, Thus Our Economy and Future!
Yes SEn Bayh we Know why you think we should kiss & make Up with LIEberman, You are both DLC'ers. Why should LIEberman be exiled and Hillary is possibly offered Sec of State? She used the Neo con tactics which Mac & Joe just picked up and ran with. What gives Her a Free pass? Frankly I hate Hillary More than Sarah (at least Sarah excuse is Inexperience) Hillary is as Vile as Dick Cheney...Are we so sure she's Not just Dick in Drag?

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

Naomi is missing the point
Posted by: Richard House on Nov 14, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Then there is the nearly $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has handed out in emergency loans. Incredibly, the Fed will not reveal which corporations have received these loans or what it has accepted as collateral."

What's so incredible about the Fed not being transparent? The Federal Reserve is not a federal agency, it is a private bank that was created in 1913, when our government gave this bank the power to make money at the government's and people's expense, giving the bankers the power to control the laws of this nation. Whoever owns the money makes the rules, makes all decisions. This comes directly out of the Communist Manifesto. Let's get real here about what kind of a "democracy" we are living in. The democrats want to give welfare payments to companies who are incompetent. Let them sink. To support them at our expense only makes the situation worse.

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

"Wall Street bailout is not merely incompetent. It is borderline criminal."
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 14, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an understatement if not an outright lie.

Where's the incompetence? What's not criminal about it all?

All this is is wealth redistribution. The paulson parasites are stealing from the masses via lies, threats, and intimidation to pad the pockets of their mafioso buddies. Did you not see how all this was ramrodded through as quickly as possible in a climate of fear with threats of disaster if not approved? Pure intimidation with the threat of economic terrorism. Look at the way it was passed. This "bill" (theft) was not passed by the House where I believe the constitution states all appropriations are supposed to originate from the House. These f**king criminals can't even stick to the simplest of constitution law.

Come on Naomi! Your criticism is weak. We need some Emma Goldmans or Eugene Debs. Somebody that can express some real outrage towards the criminality of these parasitic aristocrats that inhabit all three branches of the government.

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

Naomi is Right On
Posted by: ron heringhauser on Nov 14, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate Naomi's writings and watching her on video (she is very easy on the eyes). I do have a peoblem with the Nation magazine, after their lead article about a year ago, in which the author proclaimed that the NAFTA super highway was just a conspiracy theory. I immediatley canceled my subscription after that. As for expecting any meaningful change from the upcoming Obama administration, I fear we are all going to be in for a big disappointment. The same puppetmasters will be pulling the strings, just a different puppet. Every four or eight years they give us this illusion of having a say in our government; the names of the candidates change along with the party affiliation, but little else. Obama's top foreign policy advisor is the head of the Trilateral Commission, his wife is a top member of the CFR,the rumour is Gates is staying on as Sec. of Defense, and on and on. The only bright side that may come out of the next four years, is that our economy was will in such distress (Major Depression), that the American people will have had enough of both parties and usher in real change. ie. Ron Paul or Jesse Ventura. I am hoping for the best, but expecting the worse over the next four years. Maybe by 2012 we can finally rid our country of the source of our economic problems...The Federal Reserve (Not Federal and No Reserves/Foreign banking cartel.

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

» RE: Naomi is Right On Posted by: helenwheels
Best documented financial crash ever.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Nov 14, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are witnessing the collapse of our government. This will be available to study in generations to come (assume their are generations to come; sorry for the cliches).

But, the big news is that you idiots voted the same criminals back into power who caused this mess. So who is to blame? You are.

PS: I proudly gave money to Nader and Sheehan.

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

» You're like a broken record Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: You're like a broken record Posted by: 2thepoint
» You bet Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: You bet Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: You bet Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: You bet Posted by: 2thepoint
» Save your breath, 2thepoint, Posted by: GuitarBill
» You made my point! Posted by: 2thepoint
If we only had a Justice Department..?
Posted by: TJColatrella on Nov 14, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why isn't Our "Justice" Department doing something about it..?

Could it be because it infiltrated and infested with pernicious Federalist Society Tory swine..

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

"why aren't Dems doing something about it?"
Posted by: zooeyhall on Nov 14, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the headline to this article plaintively asks?

Simple answer: THEY'RE FEEDING AT THE SAME CORPORATE HOG TROUGH AS THE REPUBLICANS!

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

Follow the Market??
Posted by: crazy carlos on Nov 14, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yesterday, (11-13-08) the DOW was kinda pluggin along but as the morning wore on the market started to drop and was going down fast--clear to a 317 point loss, below the 8000 mark and it looked like a huge drop was comming--maybe the "cleansing" needed to finally open this can of worms. Then the PPT kicked in (Plunge Protection Team) and the day was saved for the racketeers once again.

The PPT is a consortium of $$ put together by the big banks to protect their interests Billions of dollars worth of protection -for them. Collusion to control prices is classic price fixing under the anti trust act. Where is the U.S. Atty Gen.? Where is the N.Y. Atty Gen.? Where in the hell is the S.E.C.? Where is anyone to protect the small investor?

It is time for everyone to buy a fresh rope and start breaking it in on Wall Street and in D.isneyland C.enntral. We are now being run by an out and out criminal enterprize and they are not even bothering to even mask it now. Basta es Basta!! carlos

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

» RE: Follow the Market?? Posted by: helenwheels
The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System- Part One
Posted by: chlamor on Nov 14, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society's political machinery. This doesn't mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it's a "democracy." If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it really is -- a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests.

In terms of defending the general population against the depredations of this business consortium, the Dem Party gave up the ghost in the mid-1960's. Their threadbare act as the "Party of the People" serves not to defend the well-being of the population, but merely to persuade ordinary citizens that within the official political system's framework, there's at least some faint hope for eventual progressive change. Their focus is not so much being on our side, as convincing us that they're on our side -- without the slightest serious examination of what that might entail.

The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy."

As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a "democracy" and a "choice" in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for "change within the system." From the system's point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve -- it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren't designed to play that role in the first place.


Aren't the Dems The Lesser Evil?

The Democrats are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can't be properly understood if one's study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)

Any given piece of reactionary legislation is invariably supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Does this show that the Democrats are "less evil?" If one focuses on the noble efforts of the few outspoken dissenters, it's easy to feel that the Democrats are somewhat less evil. But in the larger picture, Democrats invariably submit to what Republicans more ardently promulgate, & the entire range of official opinion thereby shifts to the right. Thus the overall function of Democrats is not so much to fight, as to quasi-passively participate in this ever-rightward-moving process. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters need their Washington Generals to make their basketball games properly entertaining, Republicans need the Democrats for effective staging of the political show.

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

» Beck's never ending opera Posted by: Bliss Doubt
The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System- Part Two
Posted by: chlamor on Nov 14, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. Emma Goldman once said, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." Similarly, if the Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling groups.

Doesn't the presence of the Dennis Kuciniches, Cynthia McKinneys, et al "prove" that the Democrats are progressive? No. The Kuciniches and McKinneys are indeed significantly different from the Hillary types -- but there are compelling reasons not to get too excited about them, either. First, they are used by the party as a "Left decoration," simply to keep potential left defectors in tow. Secondly, the party power brokers will NEVER in a million years let the Kucinich-McKinney faction have any real power.

In other words, the very modestly-sized progressive Dem faction is cynically used as a marketing tool by the national party. They are dangled before your eyes to make you think that the Dems are the "lesser evil" (since the Republicans offer no such Left decorations). The existence of a few decent Dems makes no real difference in the overall alignment of the party, and they will never be internally influential. They are a distraction.


Can Progressives "Take Over" the Dem Party?

The argument is often advanced by progressives that they might be able to "take over" the Dem Party just as the Republican Party was supposedly "taken over" by the Religious Right and neoconservatives. This is wishful thinking, and ignores the actual history and character of both parties.

The Republicans were always the party of Wall Street & Northern manufacturing. The Democrats were the party of the Southern slaveocracy. When the national Democrats defied southern racism by passing the Civil Rights Acts in the mid '60's, the southern states bolted, destroying the New Deal coalition. The Republicans profited from this by adapting to southern tastes, values, & religious/cultural conceptions.

But this was in no way out of character for the Republicans. The far right was able to take over the Republican Party because that kind of alliance was always very much in the nature of the Republican Party anyway. It was compatible with, not contradictory to, the big-business nature of the Republican party. Forming an alliance with fascists, racists & religious zealots ADVANCED the big-business agenda.

By contrast, for progressives to take over the Democrats would be an unprecedented departure from the party's character. To understand this, one must first recognize that the sole Dem claim to being progressive is rooted almost entirely in the New Deal, itself a response to a unique crisis in American history. FDR recognized that to avert the very real threat of massive social unrest and instability, significant concessions had to be made to the working class by the ruling class. Government could act to defend the weak, and to some extent to rein in the strong, but this was all in the longterm interests of defending the existing social order.

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

The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System- Part Three
Posted by: chlamor on Nov 14, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before FDR, the Dem Party had no progressive record whatsoever; and after FDR, though the New Deal coalition survived until the mid-1960's, it did so with a record of achievement that was restrained compared to the 1930's. After passing Medicare in 1965 the party reverted to its longterm pattern, and since then, there has again been no progressive record to speak of. The party's progressive social reform was thus concentrated mostly in the 1930's, with some residual momentum lasting until the mid 60's. The party's "progressive period" was thus 1) an exception to the longer term pattern; 2) a response to a unique crisis; and 3) has in any case been dead for over 40 years.

The word "progressive" refers to the commitment of a political party to defend the interests of the working class (aka the overwhelming majority of the population) against the depredations of the ruling elite. Not only is the Democratic Party unable and unwilling to engage in such a fight, it is unwilling even to pronounce the fight's name -- "class warfare." Marx is understandably reviled by capitalists for his annoyingly accurate perception that the capitalist class and the rest of the population have a fundamental conflict of interest. Capital seeks only to maximize its return; return can certainly be enhanced by using the machinery of state to transfer costs and burdens to the weak and vulnerable; thus rule by capital is intrinsically inimical to the basic interests of the majority of the population. There is no escaping this reality.

American public discourse attempts to paper over this vexing truth with fatuous happy talk, such as, "By working together, we can make make things better for everyone!" This is a lie. When capital controls government, government is no more than a tool used by elites to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. This kind of arrangement cannot possibly "make all boats rise" over the long term. Only the yachts will rise. If there is no political mechanism for opposing plutocratic rule, the strong will continue to squeeze additional wealth out of the weak until a) the weak become desperate and rebel, b) the weak are crushed and become permanently enslaved, or c) the strong begin suffering more from guilty consciences, than reaping enjoyment from additional wealth -- and therefore relent. (Very few instances of this last are known in recorded history.)

For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for opposing the absolute rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the population in this conflict.

A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the next, is not likely to take that position.

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

One last raid on the public finances, a few money transfers to the Caymans, and sayonara..
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Nov 14, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1907 Banker's Panic. Old history, but same deal. A huge crash wiped 50% of the value off the market, and then Morgan and Rockefeller stepped in to "rescue" the banks - meaning they gained control of a lot of assets at rock-bottom prices.

That's what the bailout is being used for, by Paulson, ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs. Hey, the other ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs is a Democrat, Jon Corzine, the governor of New Jersey, and Obama's economic spokesperson, so hey. Rub-a-dub-dub, there's room for all in the tub...

"Nevertheless, Corzine has been serving as an economic spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on national television programs and at campaign rallies. He has been on NBC's Meet the Press and CNBC's Squawk Box in recent weeks and appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Thursday night."

Goldman Sachs has a long record of manipulation of prices - for example they artificially dropped oil prices before the 2006 election, a move that would tend to support political incumbents.

That's the deal. The comparison to the energy industry is also revealing - since the banks and the utilities and the oil corporations are all closely tied to one another. That $700 billion bailout is not going to be used to extend lines of credit to the renewable energy industry sector, in other words - in fact, the opposite has happened.

The bailout was intended to consolidate power, is all.

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

Obama isn't bringing any change either
Posted by: PakiBoy on Nov 14, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider his proposed appointment of Larry Summers:

By PETER CERVANTES-GAUTSCHI (counterpunch.org)
"Summers, while serving as under secretary of the Treasury in 1995, engineered the destruction of Mexico's economy by increasing interest rates to unmanageable levels—business and farm loans went from 11% to 56%, credit card rates from 7% to 61%, home loans from 5% to 75%, car loans from 7% to 91%. The result was massive human suffering and the forced migration of millions of economic refugees to the United States.

Although Wall Street banks profited handsomely, the impact of 1995 loan interest rate increases in Mexico was more than millions of people and businesses could handle. Thousands of farms and businesses, both large and small, went bankrupt. In 1995 alone over 12,000 of Mexico's businesses filed for bankruptcy, and as economic activity came to a standstill and demand was cut, orders were canceled and plants operated at less than minimum levels. Idle capacity in many branches of the manufacturing sector increased to 70%. It became impossible for millions of workers to support their families by earning paychecks in their own country. Unable to earn enough to support their families, many of them migrated to the United States to find family wage work.

A report adopted by Mexico's Senate on September 21, 2007 noted that Alan Greenspan gave Summers credit for the draconian interest rate measure and Greenspan wrote in his memoir:

That experience (the Mexican bail-out) formed a lasting bond between Rubin, Summers, and me ... Larry could be shrewd too: it was his idea to put such a high interest rate on the Mexico loans that the Mexicans felt compelled to pay us back early.

Larry Summers' tenure at Treasury the last time around was marked by enriching the relative few while devastating the very many. The U.S. citizenry voted for a change and a priority on Main Street over Wall Street. Policies that impoverish workers, whether here or in Mexico, do not reflect the change we voted for.

Surely the man we are so proud to have elected our president could choose, from among the many capable economists, one who values humanity."

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

Mr. Dana L. Stern
Posted by: Dana L. Stern on Nov 14, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just about everything the Bush administration has done has questionable motives and probable criminal outcomes. No one can do anything until we have a new Attorney General under President Elect Obama. We have to be patient! The current Attorney General Michael Mukasey is Bush's hand picked man. He's probably broken laws too! Again everything can be investigated and punished once we reach 1/20/09 end of an error!

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

Blocking other provisions of the bill
Posted by: reelectnoone on Nov 14, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Main street is being hoodwinked in other ways. Also included in this bill are provisions to protect mortgage holders and tenants in rented dwellings when those are part of the securities purchased by the Treasury.

If it becomes impossible to find out who got the money, how does one invoke those provisions?

There needs to be a published list of every recipient of those funds in order to allow anyone facing foreclosure or eviction to see if they have protections due them.

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

General feelings are telling people the truth
Posted by: auntiegrav on Nov 14, 2008 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think people are as stupid as they think they are. What I mean is that people are sensing that something is wrong, but they can't put their feelings into thoughts and the right words.

What the government and banks and corporations are trying to do with these bailouts is to create money out of thin air.

Banks can create money by creating a contract with a worthy borrower. The exchange consists of the borrower giving up some of their future in order to have money now, with interest.

What the government is doing is pretending they have created money by promising to raise taxes on people in the future. The fault with that premise is that we can't pay the taxes that are due NOW, let alone adding 50% to the government budget. (the bailouts are approaching 1.5 trillion, and the budget is 3 trillion - give or take)

There is no 'there' there, and we all know that the bailout money is no more real than the housing values are.

Rome has died, but doesn't have the grace to fall aside. The U.S. is no more solvent than Iceland is right now (except for the illegal drug trade, which deals in cash, real goods, and people who HAVE to trust each other).

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

Aw, you poor suckers who let both parties mug you !
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 14, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I told you people out there to give 3rd parties a chance but nooooooooooooo, you had to be a bunch of DUMB DOGS and ignore what they had to offer ! And how about paying attention to your local elections for a change? The better the turnout on local and state levels, the more Wall $treet will be forced to spend money on these elections and the less control they'll have on the federal level. Until Main Street stops shooting itself in the foot with glee by self-deluding themselves into thinking they'll be "rich" as Wall $treet, Wall $treet is just gonna keep FUCKING AND RAPING the LOSERS on Main Street

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

» RE: AND THE WINNER IS... Posted by: Crazy H
Maybe the Castle Laws could solve this...
Posted by: prtsimmons on Nov 14, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't usually advocate violence, but after reading the Alternet article on Castle Laws in Florida, Texas, Colorado, etc., it occurs to me that there is a solution to this massive bailout/theft, and the Republicans provided the means. Someone should line up Bernanke, Paulson, et al., in their gunsights, shout "They're stealing 1 trillion dollars... they're about to get away!" and start shootin'. Those Texas judges who thought shooting someone to protect a garage full of tools was 'justifiable homicide' should give you a medal for protecting so much public money.

Seriously, violence sucks. Don't kill anyone. But do anything else you can to prevent those greedy billionaires from stealing another cent of public money.

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

Bill Perdue
Posted by: donal1944 on Nov 14, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why aren't the Dems doing something about it?"

What a silly question. The Democrats and Republicans are co-defendents, co-conspirators and bipartisan hand puppets of the rich.

Democrats have been staunch defenders and deregulators of predatory corporations since the Carter Administration deregulated S&L’s and Reagan passed laws paying off the mess created by Carter’s deregulation. Both Bush’s and Clinton have been advocates of NAFTA, exporting jobs, union busting, draconian cuts in welfare, criminal cuts in the taxes of the corporate rich and ham fisted deregulation. And none more so than Bill Clinton.

Obama is the latest entry in the line up. Look at his economic crisis transition team. If it were a TV show it’d be called The Usual Suspects. It’s composed entirely of CEO’s, economic vampires like Buffett and retreaded retards from Clinton’s economic team. Those are the dummies who created the economic collapse which could soon morph from a deep recession to a depression.

Nader and other consumer protection advocates were not invited and most tellingly, neither was the AFL-CIO.

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

Don' worry; be happy
Posted by: willymack on Nov 14, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Incompetence? Criminal behavior? By the GOP? Well then, everything's perfectly normal, isn't it? Let's face it; it's been a continous crime spree since Jan 20th., 2001. It's all been in the open too, at least the EFFECTS of the criminal behavior have. As usual, the shadow figures actually responsible for the grand theft of our national treasure have remained in their hidey holes like the roaches they are, letting stooges like bush et al front for them. So you see, everything's perfectly AOK. Have another couple Twinkies and wash them down with a light beer as you watch"Dancing with the stars".

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

Taxpayers RULE So start ruling..
Posted by: mom'z the word on Nov 14, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the recent election proves that voters are the power brokers in this country. We vote and government has to listen. They can not ignore us when we collective in one voice tell them what to do.

I dare say that the majority of citizens in this country believe the bailout is a corrupt and insane solution to our economic dilemna.

So it only makes sense to me to simply contact my representatives with an email saying NO bailout to the banks or the auto industry period.

This is not up for discussion. This is not a choice or option on their part. The order to our representatives is just NO bailouts. If everyone that pays taxes in this country told our representatives how to vote for the bailout I do believe they would have little choice but to do what we tell them.

I think as taxpayers we all agree this bailout is not in our best interest. It is a very bad deal for us. Our representatives are there to act in our best interest. That is what we are paying them, with our tax dollars, to do . I think they need to know without a doubt that we do not want a bailout. Letting them know by phone, email or letter is by far the most effective and expedient means of communicating our demands.

It can't do any harm. And it sure as heck is going to get their attention. It is a simple matter. The bill comes up for a vote and they just vote NO. End of story. Taxpayers Rule!!! We got the power and the money so we better start acting like rulers or lose it.

Just saying NO is the first step. A better plan is the next step.

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

» RE: Taxpayers RULE So start ruling.. Posted by: mom'z the word
Why aren't WE doing anything?
Posted by: Beck on Nov 14, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the national day of protest of the bailout occured, I stood alone on a busy street corner where many protests happen.

I wonder how many emails to congress (Dem or Republican; it isn't just the Dems in charge of this) have happened for every post here. I'm betting the ratio is about the same as those who said in polls they were voting for Nader vs. those who actually voted for him. Or even worse.

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

» RE: Why aren't WE doing anything? Posted by: mom'z the word
Washington needs an enema.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 14, 2008 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you mean the Dems aren't doing anything? Why, just this morning, Congress had five billionaire heads of Wall Street up to The Hill for a CONGRESSIONAL HEARING! There, these five were PUT UNDER OATH! (Where they lied their teeth out.) Then – wait for it – these five were subjected to HARSH LANGUAGE!

Boy, we're moving on this debacle now! Just what we need: another round of congressional hearings, with heated interchanges and much gnashing of teeth between the hearing's panel and the five crooks. Ain't that entertainment!

And then?

With the public spectacle presented and the public once again mollified (and bamboozled), everybody will go away; our "leadership" in Congress back to their lobbyist-paid-for aristocratic lifestyle, all the while congratulating themselves in the delusion that they did something ... and the five billionaires to go travel to all the places we cannot afford and play with the billions – our billions - they have stolen.

Why do we continue to put up with this?! Why does the american public not see congressional hearings without enforcement as farce? For that matter, why did ANYONE vote for McSame and the "degenerizer bunny," motormouth Sarah Palin? Are we really so dumb as a nation that we are today staring, perpetually confused, into the crooked mouth of the government we deserve?

I'll maintain a bit of hope that an Obama administration will bring about needed changes – but, if they don't come, THEN what ... ?

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

Same o' Same o'
Posted by: Crazy H on Nov 14, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is that the Bushistas don't want to fix it.

He's taking a page from his daddy's book. Remember '92? AFTER the election, Daddy Bush ordered US troops into Bosnia.

He didn't have an objective or battle plan. He wanted to leave a big problem for Clinton. He was hoping it would turn into another Vietnam & Clinton would take the blame.

So what if a few Americans died, the important thing was that the Dems took the heat.

No diff here. No only will Barack get yet another mess to clean up, but Dumbya's friends will pocket the cash and walk away.

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

And no one realized this was going to happen why??????
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Nov 14, 2008 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the clearer it becomes that Washington's handling of the Wall Street bailout is not merely incompetent. It is borderline criminal."

When the people that bring you 2 failed wars, a rich/poor divide as large as any since before the last depression and you are just starting to realize the criminal behavior of the thugs that currently run the government! Please, they should have been IMPEACHED long, long ago!!!!!

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

Are you kidding me?
Posted by: dockboy on Nov 14, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why Aren't the Dems Doing Something About It? The first time around, the House dems approved it, but House Republicans voted it down. Second time around, they approved it because they, like the Dems, wanted out of Washington, to go campaign.

The Dems DID do something about it. They added earmarks, didn't keep execs from pocketing much of the money, etc. It is the Democrats that control both houses in Congress, not the Republicans. This is the change you believed in.

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

Answer- for the same reason Senator Obama just resigned.
Posted by: steveconn on Nov 14, 2008 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When President Obama and Senator McCain voted for the robbery, the fix was in and the fix stayed in after the election? The only Progressives not surprised are the 694,606 who voted for Ralph Nader who told it like it is.
Why do you think Obama resigned his Senate spot?
He is already in hiding.

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

I said I would try not to say it... but, uh, "I TOLD you so...."
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 14, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is only one president at a time," we hear from Barack Obama.

Kinda like another center-right "progressive" Dim, Mr. Al Gore who said, 'the Nation needs closure' or something to that effect when he cowardly pulled his pants down and bent over for the Bush junta in 2000.

The next 60 some odd days are going to be a total shitstorm... but hey there's only one president at a time. Good luck with that Barack, come Jan. 21, it'll be a much bigger mess and you might not be able to clean much of it up.

Don't worry we poor people have lots of time on our hands and we don't mind giving you and every other owning-class "We can't" flipflopper a "hand" taking out the trash.

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

Clearly...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Nov 14, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because the Dems are as clueless as anyone in power right now... even your man Obama voted for the bail out and is championing another one to bail out the Auto Industry! You know, the guys who refused to see the writing on the wall and kept building Hummers and Suburbans despite all evidence to the foolishness of doing so? They knew, though, that all they'd need to do was cry help and their dupes in congress would bail them out. Same game plan with the banks.

A better question would be why arent the streets jammed with protesting people and a general strike happening across the nation?
It's because too many take any clues they have from television and in whose employ are all these pundits, save for maybe Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez?

You all think you're so free.

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

» RE: Clearly... Posted by: Von
So YOU do something about it!
Posted by: Yesican on Nov 14, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President-elect Obama has posted a website where you can easily send him a direct message. While he personally may not read it, I would bet he's having it carefully monitored. If you are eloquent enough, the monitors might even forward it to him.
This is a big change. Did you ever get the idea that Bush was even interested in your opinion?

President-Elect Obama is hard at work getting this country back on track, but he’s counting on input from all of us.

I just wrote in to share my vision for where President-Elect Obama should lead the country, you might want to do the same:

http://www.change.gov/yourvision

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

borderline criminal? potential lawlessness?
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Nov 14, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Naomi, you're being too gentle and diplomatic.

The lights have been out on this so-called bailout since the beginning. Now it's become just a corporate welfare general fund. Just what all can you do with this amount of money? Start a new world? Tamper with a foreign regime? Pay down government debt to China?

I'm grateful that Bloomberg news has filed suit. That makes the organization a hero to me.

I'd love to blame it all on Bush, but in spite of a bipartisan public outpouring of objection, it was done from both sides of the aisle. The most ironic part of my day was hearing a sound bite on NPR this morning, Bush calling for more oversight in the financial markets.

I'd love to hear Obama making noises about stopping the bailout. He may be unable to do anything yet, but we still need to hear from him about it. I'd love to hear Biden, Hillary, just anyone, making noise about this travesty. The silence is Orwellian.

I feel so betrayed, but at the moment too broke to expatriate, not that there's any country in the world where the greedy hands of the corporate gang of thugs can't reach.

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

Obama voted for the bailout
Posted by: Reader11722 on Nov 14, 2008 11:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama voted for the bailout of the zioni$t bankers. The President-elect is already showing his true colors. Mo$$ad owns him (he picked Rahm Emanuel, the son of a terrorist for Chief of Staff). Obama will probably let Mo$$ad slide on their 9/11 involvement and Obama will continue their wars. So who won? Israel did, as always.

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

» Bigot & Idiot Posted by: gellero1
Niomi Klein is right --The time for change is NOW
Posted by: using on Nov 14, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the Republicans are gone! HURRAY!
But, we are better off...only if we push the Democrats or replace the two parties.

I fought for Obama with a passion..because we needed to get rid of the -- promise you nothing while rubbing your face in the theivery......crooks.

Now, we have to consider Nader's point: the two parties are feeding from the same trough.
We need to start working for a united citizens group that will gain power and strenght as we see what still has to be done. Obama was good at building a grassroots for change. Well so, now we know we have it in us to continue the fight. This time we cannot settle for the smooth face lift Clinton gave our economy to keep us placid while he allowed NAFTA to pass. This time we have to be ready to make the voices that stood for Obama's Change help make change happen.

So....step one: There is a web site that asks for signatures to a letter to Obama, and your senators to not give money to the auto industry unless it is tied to regulations for cars that will benifit the ecological development Obama promised.

And did you hear Dodds outrage at the Banking leaders?.... was he born yesterday?...didn't he know they know from the getgo they have no shame..once a person has crossed over so many lines they are willing to openly say...they want the money freely without regulations or chance of being held accountable there is no expecting a person has enough conscience or humanness left to care for humanity and therefore the Finance Industry needs to be tied to regulations and a structure (with transparency) that will invest in developing and restructurning industries that will benifit rebuilding our planet and our economy and our morality.

The other kind of investing...should be considered gambling and outside of governments juristiction and tax payers money, unless they are willing to comply with structure and transparency. We need to change our "Buyer Beware" TO include "Business be Accountable". And we need to replace all men of power with those that have a strong moral base whose goal is to build a better world for all.

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

All of a sudden, everybody's a genius
Posted by: Gregory Kruse on Nov 14, 2008 11:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand that Naomi Klein is terrified. So am I. So is Barack Obama. I can understand why so many people are impatient for change as a result of the election. We have waited so long for some relief from the smirky optimism in the White House. Activism is hard to stop once it gets rolling. See Doonesbury's Alex. We are all like runners to first base on a close and crucial play and we are safe, but we have run past the bag. There is a time-out until we can get back on the bag and get ready to run for second base. Barack is the Manager and has no time-outs. Let's let him call the plays, run when we get the signal, and be patient when the game doesn't seem to be moving along fast enough. Put yourselves in his place and have a little compassion.

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

Mafeasance and Contempt of Congress Charges would be nice..!
Posted by: TJColatrella on Nov 14, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There could be a case made for formal charges of Malfeasance made by Congress, even possible Racketeering under RICO and or Contempt of Congress for Treasury changing the deal or purpose and intent of Congress in the distribution of these hundreds of billions..!

That would be cool..to see Paulson and Kashkari if not Bernanke in a perp walk..

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

It's...
Posted by: Elmowilcox on Nov 14, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Esoteric Agenda, stupid.

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

Why complain?
Posted by: Mystery Solver on Nov 14, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You libs should direct your criticism toward your messiah who voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout.

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

» RE: Why complain? Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Why complain? Posted by: cwilsondrum
who runs the show
Posted by: cbishopp on Nov 14, 2008 12:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This situation is just another clue as to who really runs the economy and the passes the laws that govern this country.
Dianne Feinstein stated on the news that before the bailout bill was passed she had an overwhelming number of calls to her office of which the majority demanded that the bailout bill be stopped. She voted for the bill. Then we all had to watch hours of news footage where Senators stood around and congratulated each other on their fine non bipartisan effort.
Staged. All of it.
We were all held hostage. The Senate looks like a highly controlled circus of jugglers and clowns and both of our presidential candidates were senators.
Why is the Federal Reserve above investigation? Why do they have a monopoly on the control of our currency? Why did we just borrow money AT INTEREST from an institution IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE SAME INSTITUTION?
Bush is not this powerful, he is a dolt and can't wait to get off the clock and get drunk on the ranch. Cheney is not this powerful, he can't wait to get back to blowing babies up in his lab (or whatever the hell he does for fun). So who runs the show?
If we already have the Patriot Act in place and FEMA set up for emergency suspension of the constitution and Blackwater trained and ready to replace an exhausted military and an underfunded police force while our main sources of energy are foreign born and our water supply controlled primarily by corporate interests plus a bunch of Friedmanites in key positions in the government that recommend no control over the market (as stated by Klein).
We are looking at a very dangerous situation where too few people have too much control over the welfare of this country.
am I being paranoid again?

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

Obama's Biggest Campaign Contributors Were in the Financial Industry
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Nov 14, 2008 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you really think he will go after them?

It's been known for a while that CEOs, corporate board members, are taking most of their compensation in stock.

Why is that?

Taxes.


With many of these stock bonuses, the recipient does not need to pay capitol gains taxes on them until they are sold. (If they enter a public servant job in the executive branch like Treasury Secretary Paulson did, they can use government divesture rules to sell their conflict of interest stock, diversify their portfolio buying a bunch of different companies' stocks with high dividends and not have to pay capitol gains taxes until the next time they sell the stock. Paulson was able to delay paying his $200 million tax bill through this loophole.)

Meanwhile most stocks in the financial industry pay a dividend. Dividends have a maximum tax rate of 15%. These executives have an income tax rate of as high as 35% and under Obama that will probably go up to 39%.

So they take their compensation as stock, live off the dividend, and pay a 15% tax rate on their dividend income.


If Obama really wanted to make the rich pay their fair share he would eliminate the dividend tax loophole by charging a person their income tax rate on any dividend income. (IE if a person has an income tax rate of 25% then their dividend tax rate is 25%.)

Obama is not going to do this, he was supported by the rich and his income tax rate increase of the 35% bracket up to 39% is just a token gesture to make it look like he is going after the rich when if he really wanted to he would go after dividends.

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

I'm not buying any of this - this is not a bailout, it's a stickup.
Posted by: charles000 on Nov 14, 2008 1:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not buying any of this - this is not a bailout, it's a stickup.

Our prisons are filled to the bursting point with millions of people behind bars, often for burglary or robbery associated with drug addiction.

And yet these Wall Street criminals have committed self serving acts of corruption and crime on a scale for which there is no precedent.

Obama could, if he was truly devoted to the concept of "change", start by working with congress to drastically change the lives and lifestyles of the banking cartel criminals and their corporate carpet bagger comrades that have committed economic treason.

Start by sending these people off to a max security federal prison, 25 years to life, and implement laws and regulatory compliancy requirements with real teeth.

Get the message out loud and clear - you cross the line, and you are going away, essentially forever, and all of your ill gotten gains will be confiscated and distributed to those who have suffered by your thievery.

No more camp cupcake dormitory style prisons for you - from now on it's going to be hard time in a max security prison - end of discussion

Obama says he wants to spread the wealth around - I say let's spread some justice and draconian pain around to those who deserve it.

It is beyond heartbreaking to see 100s of billions of dollars now being pumped into the Wall Street investment banking cartels, knowing that this money is disappearing into a bottomless pit that our grand children will be paying for.


Sending these treasonous scumbags to a max security federal prison, would tell the world and our own citizenry that we can, and will restore credibility to the USA and what it represents.

As far as I'm concerned, I would have no problem with seeing the severed heads of some of these treasonous investment banking criminals festooned on pikes, on public display right there on Wall Street . . . but I digress.

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

Chrysler doling out 30 million in bonuses to execs while awaiting bailout
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Nov 14, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody see the article? I'd post a link but you can google it easily.

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

Are You Serious???
Posted by: gellero1 on Nov 14, 2008 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why aren't the Dems doing something????

Duh...........Check out how much they get from Wall Street.

"Change we can Believe in" ????

Dream on, suckers

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

because the american ruling class is in grip of slavery to britain and has been for a long time.
Posted by: avatar_singh on Nov 14, 2008 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the british plan to stay long will be very dangerous for all the nations in central asia including India (of which leadership is in british pocket at the moment.). do we not know how evil thse british bastyrds are? do we have to seek any more justification to remove and elminate this parasite english race from the face of the earth?
read this from the horse's mouth--
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JK15Df03.html

" Page 2 of 2
Afghanistan abyss awaits Obama
By M K Bhadrakumar






Their buzzword is "regional security". Britain has also echoed it by coming up with a parallel idea of regional security, whereby regional players such as Pakistan, Iran, India, China and Russia along with the US and Britain will be brought into a structure, a consultative mechanism, as "stakeholders". The British ambassador in Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, visited Tehran a fortnight ago to sound out the Iranians. He visited Delhi over the weekend, and told the media, "Our strategy is of a politically-driven, security-led counter-insurgency strategy and more coherent, sustained international support for Afghanistan and its government. What we want to do, for good counter-insurgency reasons, is to get our troops out of direct combat operations. So it is Afghans doing the fighting, not foreign forces."
The Foreign Affairs article charters a breathtaking landscape that all but ensures that Obama will lose his way and will never get anywhere near an Afghan settlement in the four years ahead of his presidency. Britain, while setting the tempo for Obama, focuses on itself as remaining a key player. But Sir Sherard's play of words apart, the ground situation is grim for Obama.

On Tuesday, Germany's Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said Berlin would resist any US pressure to send troops to strife-ridden southern Afghanistan. Spain openly called for changes to the Western strategy after the killing of two Spanish soldiers in a suicide attack in the western city of Herat on Sunday. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos has been quoted as saying, "The debate must not be about sending more troops, but about how to carry out a political and military strategy that will put an end to the situation of instability."

Canada has reiterated its decision to pull out its troops by 2011. In Britain, according to an opinion poll released on Wednesday, 68% said British troops should be taken out of Afghanistan by 2010. The head of the British armed forces, Air marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, warned against Obama's idea of sending more troops to Afghanistan, similar to the "surge" in Iraq in 2007. He told the BBC, "Even if the situation demanded it, it cannot be just a one for one transfer from Iraq to Afghanistan, we have to reduce that tempo … I am a little nervous when people use the word 'surge' as if this were some sort of panacea."

Tehran has lost little time to rubbish Sir Sherard's proposal. At an international conference on Afghanistan at Dushanbe on Tuesday, attended by a senior US State Department official, the Iranian delegate ambassador Ali Ashar Sherdoust said Western countries and mediators should leave the issue to the Afghans and let them decide their fate. He stressed that Iran opposed the continued presence of foreign forces and their interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. Sherdoust ridiculed the "countries thousands of kilometers away" from Afghanistan which are insisting on running the country's affairs while "ignoring the interests" of Afghanistan's neighbors.

The British game plan is partly at least to spike the parallel initiative by the SCO to hold a special conference on Afghanistan. The US and Britain have been resisting repeated attempts by the SCO and the Collective Security Organization to play a role in Afghanistan.

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

why aren't the dems doing something???
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Nov 14, 2008 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because they were instrumental in getting the fucking bailout passed....that's why...one for the "duh" file if you ask me.

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

blame
Posted by: follow the money on Nov 14, 2008 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this country was once respected around the world, and look at what happened in the last eight years..
and now we are going to get a scapegoat taking all the blame for all that is going wrong around us..millions of people facing foreclosure, losing their homes, properties, and only the strong survive...

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

why worry about market and wall street? stock markets are fraudulent means to steal money
Posted by: avatar_singh on Nov 14, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
14th novembr 2008

In last two days when we hear that the american consumer dpendiong has dramatically gone down and that there is a mas slay out-s we see the stock market rising by 7%.
when we hear that britian is in real downturn in real economy and there is a mass unemployment going on-the stock market rises.
there is no reason for movement of stock amrket in either way except through manipuklation.
in fact thast is how these anglosaxon bastrdds in stock market destroyed other countreies economy-besides through world bank and IMF.
japan was and is an industrail country -so is germany. but the anglosaxon persuaded the two countries to fianncialize the economy even of manufacturing-because the britsh ahd alredy fallend behind in quailty over manufacturing so they resorted to old prosfessionof piracy therouhg stock amrket.
IN early 90s the anglosaxons casused recession in japan copntuing until now-they did it ebcause japan moved into stock market economy.
so were destryed the asian econmomy in 90s and so was doen to Russia in 90s.
but despite all gloom economy and fact that rbitan and america are bankrupt countries-the stock market has not gonde down as much as that of asian countries who are fianncing thse anglosaxon bastrds!
the only way left is to ignore the stock market which lives in illusion of money while itis really pauper and bankrupt.

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

One Partei State
Posted by: Direct Democracy on Nov 14, 2008 3:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

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

It is oficial -BBC and british establishment are for mass genocide-BBC agrees, time4poor2die!-
Posted by: avatar_singh on Nov 14, 2008 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45876,

BBC agrees, time for the poor to die!

FIRST POSTED NOVEMBER 14, 2008

In the middle of all the hoo-hah over Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand's childish phone calls on a late-night radio show, you may have missed a far more scandalous utterance that was made on BBC radio.

On 5 November, the upmarket Nightwaves on BBC Radio 3 aired a discussion about overpopulation between Dr Susan Blackmore (a neuroscientist) and Professor John Gray (of the London School of Economics).

Dr Blackmore said the "fundamental problem" facing the planet today is that "there are too many people". Professor Gray agreed. Then Dr Blackmore declared: "For the planet's sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we're doomed."

So, it's official: at the Beeb it is unacceptable to make crude jokes about having sex with someone's granddaughter, but it is perfectly OK to wish death upon large swathes of mankind.

Make a rude call to Andrew Sachs' answerphone and you will be accused of dragging the BBC's good name through the dirt. Spout misanthropic nonsense about the need for a speedily contagious disease to come and wipe out mankind and nobody will bat an eyelid.

At the Beeb it is perfectly OK to wish death upon large swathes of mankind

The disparity between the public reaction to Brandgate (wild) and the public reaction to what I think we should call 'Birdflugate' (non-existent) reveals a great deal about the warped morality of the cultural elite.

The reason why Dr Blackmore's remark received no coverage or complaints is because the herbal tea-drinking literati that listens to Radio 3 discussion programmes will secretly share her prejudices about overpopulation.

Malthusianism, the one-eyed belief that all of the Earth's problems are caused by over-breeding, is making a comeback in polite circles.





Following the discrediting of eugenics during the Second World War, Malthusians had been rather shamefaced about their beliefs. They continually invented new PC terms with which they might dress up their angst about "too many people".

In Africa in particular, measures to tackle overpopulation were promoted in the deceitful language of "choice" and

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

Richard Sharp
Posted by: Richard Sharp on Nov 14, 2008 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate Welfare State Reaches New Heights (Part 1)

Employment is only a slightly upgraded form of serfdom. Just read Dilbert, probably the greatest business guru of all time.

Corporate executives, in particular, can’t help themselves in a perpetual, four-fold quest against their own employees: 1) to squeeze every extra minute from our time at work, such as by extending it to our off-duty hours and homes, 2) to make sure we adhere to their rules, kind of like robots, 3) in fact, to replace us with robots and contract out even core activities, wherever possible and, for those of us left, 4) to cut our pay, benefits, union rights and any other workplace protections they never wanted to promise us in the first place.

That’s what management does. Increase production. Control labor costs. Unions are so “old school.” Part-time job anyone? Whoops, we’ve outsourced to China.

This is Sociology 101. Large corporations seek to control their environment to assure their survival and growth. Control means getting others to do what they would not otherwise do. Enter hired guns like lobbyists, associations and "think" tanks, and government relations, marketing, HR and legal departments, etc. None of these folks actually make any widgets. They peddle persuasion. Lies, leaks and threats count.

Corporate executives also knows that charity begins at home. It’s a closed shop (white males please) so only the best for these titans of finance and industry. Will 600 times average salaries do? Bonuses no matter the results? Some off-book things like glutinous expense accounts or stock options (from nothing, like printing money)?

No problem. Isn’t insider trading great? But did I tell you we had to shut down Michigan?

"That's business. Increase profits! Faster! Don’t worry. If you screw up, we have the money and lawyers to protect you. If you do get caught, we have this nice golden parachute for you. All you have to do is keep our little secrets." (ANON)

In terms of really big screw-ups like, say, a saving-and-loan collapse or a global economic meltdown, the feds jump in and bail them out. Because they're "too big to fail," in the name of “liquidity” and other absurdities. Perfect.

Unimaginable trillions are being showered globally on banks, insurance companies, brokerage firms and now, apparently, the (former) Big Three, RIP. Where’s this money coming from? Why from taxpayers. Can we get it back? Well, no, it’s about those executive employment contracts. They're all right, Jack.

Governments scurrying around bailing out failed corporations really shouldn’t surprise us. Governments have been scurrying around fulfilling corporate wish lists for the past quarter century: privatizing and deregulating anything in sight, cutting corporate taxes, gutting and muzzling oversight agencies and so on.

Mergers and acquisitions to eliminate the competition? That's allowed. To dismantle perfectly viable companies, by selling off profitable operations and assets, and the hell with employees? That too. To raid pensions? Uh, be careful!

This has also been called a race to the global bottom to reduce environmental, worker, investor, consumer and other protections (uh, from corporations). You can look this stuff up under such euphemisms as globalization and “free” markets and trade.

Free trade for capital, that is, not labour. Corporations get to invest, buy stuff they need, make and sell their products just about any way they want, just about anywhere in the world. The single rule is, “Money talks.”

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

Richard Sharp
Posted by: Richard Sharp on Nov 14, 2008 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate Welfare State Reaches New Heights (Part 2)

Labor? Well no, especially because of our horrendously stupid war on terror (another story), the borders have actually been tightened to ridiculous degrees. As citizens, workers and consumers, we’re being watched, identified and reported a lot more. And there is a never-ending supply of corporate technology pimps dreaming up new ways to track and know about us, 24/7.

"Sorry about those airport hassles. And for mixing you up in my last report to Homeland Security. Now take off your shoes and what’s in your computer? Give me your fingerprints, blood, urine and DNA. Let me sniff you. Smile for the camera. Say, what is it with that friend of yours, Mo? Isn’t he Muslim?” (Big Bro’)

Of course, we're "free" not to travel. And free to quit our jobs. In other words, see “serfdom,” above.”

What we have here is the post-modern corporate welfare state. The most sophisticated scam of all time. Well over half of the largest economies in the world are corporations, not governments (sales vs. whole countries' GDPs). And WE'RE still feeding them mountains of cash when THEY screw up? Aren't STARVING people a little more important?

Oh, I forgot. Ugh. Government bad! Business good!

Don’t worry. As citizens, we get to vote every few years to set this right. Except we get "professional” politicians who can generally be characterized as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, who fawn all over us during campaigns and then go back to serving their corporate masters in between.

Wait! We still have the Fourth Estate. A free press keeps these scoundrels honest. Whoops, our "free" press are corporations, too.

Perfect once more.

Will Mr. Obama make a difference? Maybe. But he will operate in a very narrow "corridor of relative indifference." As soon as he sways outside of the "status quo," the sparks will fly. Just like when Ms. Clinton tried to reform health care.

Corporate America is that powerful. Money talks everywhere and every time! Things are just fine, thanks.

If Jesus was around today, he would be turning over these money-lenders' tables with Biblical fervor.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/18637

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

KIlling the snake of 'corporatist Empire' head first
Posted by: amacd on Nov 14, 2008 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the Democratic Party’s traditional claim of concern for the ‘working class’ and industrial workers makes the appearance of trying to help auto workers a required political gesture, there will be great pain whether the corrupt and incompetent CEOs of the auto industry get ‘bailout’ money or not --- they certainly won't use it to help workers, any more than Wall Street did to help their clerical workers.

Any real progress must start with the investment industry which is the rotten core that determines and drives the abuses of all industrial sectors and all abuses of the ‘working class’.

As Nobel laurite in economics, Paul Krugman, has repeatedly noted in the NYTimes, “powerful stimulus needs to be progressive” --- which means it has to be 'externality positive' AND sustained, by individual as well as public investments.

Al Gore wrote a great op-ed here Sunday about the 'good news' synergies between new energy technologies, jobs, our environment, economic recovery, etc. But he didn't address the 'best news' which an economist like Krugman understands; that accepted government control over tax policy can change the whole balance of investing in our economy from one focused on negative externality scams to one of positive externality progress.

Yes, our US government already has the proper power and role of taxing investment in the production of things that hurt the economy, and giving tax breaks to things that help our economy, to provide true cost signals (which include externality costs) to industry --- so that the market functions FOR society, and not against it.

Four of the biggest industries in our democratic country are clearly producing things that hurt, rather than help, all of us: the financial industry – which produces ‘debt bombs’, the war industry --- which produces real bombs, the energy industry --- which produces globe-killing pollution, and the auto industry --- which produces energy consuming junk.

By simply starting with the first of these broken and destructive enabling industries, finance, we the people --- through our government, can use tax policy to channel trillions of our dollars into sustainable and honest investments for 21st century technologies and jobs, and away from dishonest, unsustainable and anti-investment schemes that produce nothing except pain for us and looted profits for the super-wealthy.

The starting point for this rebuilding of a healthy, progressive, honest, sustainable, and democratic investment industry is already in place – in the form of the new Socially Responsible Investment industry (SRI). We only need to expand on its success, assure (through government regulation and standards) that it honestly invests in positive (and not negative) externality industries, expand its scope and promote its image as the Socially Responsible and Honest Investment industry (SRHI), and give tax breaks to all Americans who invest in it for a better 21st century future, while applying extra tax costs to any laggards who want to continue to make money the ‘old fashioned way’, in the ‘fixed casino’ of ruthless investors of the old 19th century Wall Street of unbridled greed and destructive industries.

The snake of 'corporatist Empire' can best be killed by first cutting off its head --- the greedy, out-dated, and ANTI-social investment industry.

— Alan MacDonald, Sanford, Maine

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

Cut & pasted while puking
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Nov 14, 2008 9:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Omygawd, I wish I didn't know this.

Citing a Washington Post report that insurance giant AIG intends to pay its top executives $503 million in deferred compensation, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings , D-Md., said AIG "just doesn't get it."

I read that in Truthout article: http://www.truthout.org/111408U

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

I love you Naomi...
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on Nov 15, 2008 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I'm sure you have a very good idea of whats really going on in the world, but publicly you seem to act a little naive. You're always criticizing things as they appear on the surface, or just below. I suppose that's the game that has to be played... Anyway, nice article, I'll be showing it to some "friends" of mine...

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

» RE: I love you Naomi... Posted by: Bliss Doubt
VOTE REPUBLICRAT
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Nov 15, 2008 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The democrats are in on it... therefore they will never do anything about it. SUCKERS!

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

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Nov 15, 2008 4:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The republicans just robbed the bank and the democrats are driving the getaway car!

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

Love
Posted by: bodhidude on Nov 15, 2008 4:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Naomi Klein

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

Crooked 'investment industry' key cancer
Posted by: amacd on Nov 17, 2008 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Naturally, the entire auto industry needs to be reorganized if public money is to be invested ---- and the auto industry is salvageable with management clean-out of the elite CEO ‘dead enders’, but the biggest obstacle to the auto industry becoming a positive progressive force is the totally corrupt, negative force of the ‘investment industry’, which like a cancer, infects and destroys all other productive industries.

The investment industry, which is the seminal cause of this crisis, was not reorganized at all, either before or after their theft of $700B --- cynically called an ‘investment’ by chief thieves Bush and Paulson.

The model for the investment industry is clearly MORE BROKEN, dysfunctional, and damaging to all average 'working class' Americans (who you are supposed to be represented in this democratic republic) than even the auto industry.

Yes, the auto industry has problems and dumb management, whereas the investment industry is corrupt, ruthless, anti-American and has smart/devious management --- which is far worse for all the Americans.

The auto industry, like all industrial manufacturing industries, depends on large numbers of workers. Whereas, the goal of the business model in global finance (which is totally achieved by some of the hedge fund whores, private equity pirates, and so-called ‘IB banks’ that are currently getting public money) is to run a small core operation consisting of only few highly paid owner/investors, and to funnel all faux-profits to them while using the well-known 'market failure' of 'negative externality cost displacement' on the public to ‘game’ and generate their phony profits by playing, speculating, collapsing, and merging productive industrial companies that they take-over ---- until they have de-industrialized and de-labored our whole country. The ideal business model of this inexorably corrupt elitist ‘financial thievery industry’ is well exemplified by CitiGroup which just fired 53,000 ‘working class’ Americans to support their few fats-cat thieves.

Why would any one who dares to call themselves an American want to support the de-industrialization, and gut the true ‘worker based labor value’ on a global level of their own country --- and have the US be home to only a small and elite number of global, detached, ethereal, un-patriotic, gambling, wrecking, and world destroying financial crooks? Who could be more of a virtually ‘alien enemy’ than a parasitic elite financial blood-sucker , who only wants to destroy the local labor value of America’s political economy and society, and replace it with a miniscule number of financial schemers and con-artists, living off the labor-based value of the rest of the globe while their own country-men are impoverished?

After all, this is exactly the crooked, scheming gang that put us (and the U.S.) in this condition already with their vainglorious greed and unconcern for our democratic republic.

Regardless of the substantial, but fixable problems of the auto industry, the health industry, the building industry, etc., it is the investment industry that is the cause of all our problems which must be leveled and rebuilt anew, and on a ‘positive externality’, socially responsible, and sustainable basis for all Americans, and this parasitic ‘investment industry’ should never have been given Paulson’s free, ‘no strings attached’ access to our ‘commonwealth’.

— Alan MacDonald, Sanford, Maine

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

ATH
Posted by: ATH on Nov 20, 2008 5:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously, Obama has lied to us all. I
should have known he was no good when a man
named Zibigniew Brezezinski endorsed him.
Zibigniew was Carter's SecDef, but I don't know how he ever got into a Carter admin. Zibigniew is one of the most arrogant, ruthless men in existence, who wants global government. If you want to see what I mean, read some of his book (but don't buy it), "The Grand Chessboard." Yeah, he's one of those people who view human beings as chess pieces instead of living, breathing, human beings! I mean Carter seemed to actually care a little bit about people. He recognized that we had an energy problem when there was plenty of time left to address it. He installed solar panels on the White House, which Ronald Regan ripped down. He said that our laws for marijuana possession and use were far too strong, that a penalty should never do more harm than the act of using the substance did...which, if you followed that reasoning, then there would be no penalty, since cannabis is one of the safest substances known to man--used for centuries without ONE single report of a death from use! Yet, hundreds of thousands die each year from alcohol--and its use often causes the death of other people! Yet, it is legal, and the alcohol lobby is one of the strongest opponents against decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana, even though a responsible adult's use of the substance would not, like alcohol, affect anyone but the user.
Yeah, I think Obama is a great speaker, but it looks like he fed us a line of B.S. I'm very happy now I didn't donate any money to his campaign..not that I had it anyway. You can
see that this man has no intention of changing things for the better..by change he might have meant, 'If you thought Bush was bad, you ain't
seen nothin' yet!"
Well, his ass will be out in 4 years, that's for sure. Just by looking at the people with whom he's staffing his cabinet I can tell
that he has no plans to do any of the things
he promised.
Americans will only regain their country
through Ghandi-style non-co-operation. We
will not use violence, but we will not submit
to their RFID chips or anything else. Stop
watching TV!!! Stop buying products from ANY
company that engages in war-mongering and selling killing machines, like G.E.
Obviously, our votes mean nothing, because
the system is locked out to any but the rich, and the rich will never understand or work for the poor. We're also locked into this two-party system that seems more and more like one
party all the time!
The system must be destroyed, not through violence, but by little acts of uncooperation, and it's already beginning to fall apart anyway.
We must remake our government so that it is once again Constitutional. The Founders thought we should have a revolution every twenty years! We're way over-due, and this is why things are gone beyond the point of salvage.
When a president can do the things Bush has done, and get completely away with it, there
is no justice anymore. And we can not tolerate
that. I hope I'm wrong about Obama, but I don't think so. There were only two candidates
that would have brought REAL change to Washington, and that's why they were marginalized: Ron Paul on the Rep. ticket, and
Dennis Kucinich on the dem. ticket. I would loved for Kucinich to become President and have him appoint Ron Paul as Sec. of the Treasury.

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

Electing Obama was the easy part.
Posted by: jimswanson on Nov 23, 2008 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE download of entire book]

Electing Obama was the easy part. The really hard work for progressive activists begins today, and again tomorrow, and again every day thereafter.

We must stay vigilant, take names, kick butt, and never give up. Let’s redouble our efforts.

It is alarming that Obama is appointing so many big-business-as-usual politicians, especially Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers.

Also, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharma—the list goes on—and their lobbyists have not left town.

Time will tell if Obama has the will to withstand their toxic influence.

The important question is whether “our guys” in Congress—the “good guys”—will tenaciously fight for legislation that is truly transforming and progressive.

True progressive transformation of America must be driven from the grassroots up, not from the top down by business-as-usual career politicians.

We thus trust our Democratic leaders at our peril.

We must keep our friends close, our enemy closer, and our Democratic representatives closest.

Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com

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