Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
National Protests Erupt Over Bailout Plan
NEW YORK - The George W. Bush administration's plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue giant Wall Street firms from their current financial meltdown has unleashed a spontaneous wave of protests across the United States.
Protesters gather Sep. 24 in Seattle against Sen. John McCain and the Wall St. meltdown. Protesters said they want the Congress to protect millions of
U.S. citizens who are on the verge of losing their homes due to bad
lending practices of creditors instead of doling out public money to
big investment firms responsible for ruining the economy.
"People are up in arms about this," Matt Holland of the TrueMajority.org, an advocacy group comprising 700,000 members that played a major role in organising the protests, told IPS. "Our members are livid. They're hitting the streets."
According to the group, thousands of people in more than 190 cities and towns across the country took part in demonstrations against the corporate bailout bill proposed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last Friday.
The four-page draft bill, which is currently under discussion on Capitol Hill, did not initially require any legal and financial measures to protect homeowners from possible foreclosures, nor did it put any limits on the salaries of the corporate executives -- although legislators say that has since been amended.
On Thursday, Democratic and Republican lawmakers declared they were close to reaching a deal on a modified version of the bill, but still there was no indication if it would pass the Senate and the House.
"While many are focused on providing relief to the Wall Street, millions of homeowners are at risk of being left behind," said Janet Murgula, president of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights group.
To Murgula, "it is irresponsible public policy to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for a Wall Street rescue package while simultaneously denying them a sustainable response to the devastation the rising foreclosures rate is having throughout the country."
Independent presidential candidate and populist consumer advocate Ralph Nader agrees.
"The public outrage out there is really enormous," he said in an interview with the left-wing television programme Democracy Now!, calling the Bush proposal "a double standard between the guys at the top and the people who are going to have to pay the bills."
But President Bush does not think there is anything thing wrong with his proposal.
"I understand there's a lot of nervousness, and -- but the economy is growing, productivity is high, trade's up," he said in a televised speech Wednesday. "People are working. It's not as good as we would like, but -- and to the extent that we find weakness, we'll move."
To Nader, there is no logic in Bush's remarks. "I mean, look at all his statements: this could do this, this would do that, farms failing, small business, tada, tada," he said. "The first question we have to ask as citizens is: why is there a need for a bailout?
"If there is a need for a bailout, why 700 billion dollars?" he asked. "If there is a need for a bailout, what kind of bailout? Taxpayer equity? So the taxpayer can recover if these companies make a profit, they can recover surplus."
On Thursday, at the invitation of President Bush, both presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain attended a meeting at the White House to discuss the current financial crisis facing the Wall Street. However, it remains unclear to what extent they agreed on the Paulson bill.
Latest reports from Hill suggest that members of the both political parties on the legislative committee on banking agreed to put limits on the pay of corporate executives, but there was no news about protection for vulnerable low-income homeowners.
While proposals continue to evolve and be debated, according to NCLR, a pro-homeowner package must include a model for the broad, systematic modification of failing mortgages, which is the best way to keep working families in their homes.
"Unless we respond to the needs of millions of struggling homeowners," said NCLR's Murgula, "a rising inventory of foreclosed homes will continue to overload the market, pushing housing prices down even further."
94 Comments so far
Show All.
Hee Hee - it just hit me - I've seen every Mc--- under the sun used to mock McCain - but not Mr Magoo!!!
Just Google Mr Magoo Images for a chuckle - it's HIM - looks AND character...
.
Great. We're going from Frank Burns to Mr. Magoo.
From "No Wall Street Bailout!"
Last week, President Bush put a gun to the head of the economy, and demanded a $700 billion ransom, threatening that if he didn’t get the money, he would kill the economy. The Democrats responded with a reasonable plan, the Republicans including McCain, are refusing to pay any ransom at all. In fact, they are demanding to make the situation even worse, by asking for even further de-regulation and corporate tax breaks. The stage is set for collapse. Let us hope, in this critical moment, that wisdom and pragmatism prevail.
Do The World A Favor And Retire!
Green Retirement Planning
Americans only respond when their pockets are directly in jeopardy. But when human lives are in jeopardy due to Americas' illegal and immoral invasions around the globe, they go about their business. Sick people.
tetti tatti: You are only partly right, as you would see rioting in the streets if the government decided to take away everyones guns!
Paul Revere, everyone's guns? Only a portion of the population has guns, but everyone's pocket is being affected by this, so I think you're not correct
.
My Friends,
I sincerely apologize for my flustered thinking and inept answers at tonight’s debate –
it is because I have been very, very busy and am now very, very tired.
As you know, my friends, I have been occupied saving not only the entire United States of America, but most likely the entire world from complete and utter destruction.
Did I mention I was a POW?
.
.
Sarah, where are you?
Oh, OK, there you are!
Don't stray off like that again honey.
.
What was the question again?
For a change, this outpouring of protest seems to be getting through the skulls of our so-called "representatives." They are all aware that the opposition to this bailout is off the charts.
Keep the pressure up - I've sent three letters to my Senator, Jim Bunning - and maybe we can make these banksters eat their losses ... they way we would if we blew all our money in a casino.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
As I've been saying ad nauseum, my Republican Congressman is 'emphatically' against the bailout.
It's interesting how the Repubs are playing this. They are fielding two teams, the Bush admin and the House Repubs (who are all up for re-election, unlike the Senators).
Whichever one the Dems team up with, they will get blasted by the other. Stupidly, they are teaming up with the toxic corpse of the Bush admin and getting their hands dirty.
So when, if ever, will we hear the untold stories about the bailout?
We know that the London banks want their share of the swag.
What are the Chinese demanding of us?
There's a strange caricature of Republicans that seems to exist among the left.
At one point, the Republicans were a very fiscally conservative party. And it would have been perfectly natural for those Republicans to oppose something like this. Go back to the 1970's and the debate over the bailout of Chrysler then to see a good example.
And you probably don't have to go back that far. Its really only Dubya that has recently abandoned the old conservative fiscal conservatism.
But, just because the leaders have abandon this position, that doesn't mean their base has. So to me, it makes perfect sense that there is Republican opposition. I'm sure they are hearing it from the old-school conservatives in their constituients.
One big problem the left has that I see out on the internet is that they only think of their opponents in blindingly simple stereotypes. That's the only way anyone could be surprised at Republican opposition to this. I'd strongly suggest that people get out and meet some real conservatives and Republicans.
What would probably shock the people who do that is the level of uneasy feeling about where we are going as a nation in that group. There are conservatives who've always opposed having American's die so we can be the world policeman or do to nation building. Or, you'd find what I mention above, fiscal conservatives who don't think corporations should be bailed out.
In other words, you might find ALLIES. But to get there, you have to drop the simple stereotypes. You have to drop the blind hatred that's built on stereotypes.
Of course, to be successful, we have to drop that. Mainly because we can never win an election running three or four separate 'third-party' campaigns when none of them can get even 5% of the vote.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Your words are stunningly accurate, yet the stereotypical behavior you decribe is not limited to the left by any stretch of the imagination, it is a tendancy that is shared across the aisle, so to speak. One has only to read the words of several posters here, and on both sides of the aisle, to understand that seeing things in black and white, that rigidity in the understanding of the views and opinions of others is rather commonplace.
Of course the Republican Party is unfairly represented by Bush, as it was, frankly, by Reagan as well. It would seem that , in order to win an election or achieve a goal, we all allow a certain latitude in our belief systems. I read diatribes against conservatism when the poster is actually describing another, and far more harmful phenomenon, NEO conservatism. I read angry defenses of a Democratic Party that, in my opinion, doesnt exists excepting in that poster's mind. Thus it would seem that your rather brilliant insight can be expanded to include us all, samson.
"Better the illusion that exhaults us than a thousand truths." Alexander Pushkin
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Let me check my wrist to see what time it is. Yep, it’s half past a T x R volt! Perhaps we should facilitate the downfall of the current corrupt govorporation. Now, I wouldn’t actually be in a position to offer tax advice, but I think it would be beneficial to the citizens, the plebeians actually, if we would simply mention to our neighbors that we just might be leaning toward shaving off about 30% of our tax payment to the govorporation next year. I wouldn’t go blabbering about this in the commons, but simply bringing it up during the next PTA meeting, religious gathering, knitting party, drinking binge, pizza eating competition, commercial during American Idol or the Ed Sullivan re-runs, would probably do a great deal toward bringing down the next corrupt administration—that would be McCain-Palin because the republicans have been placing their stealth operatives in many states for several years now. When the litigation starts regarding the massive election fraud, well, it all ends up at the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is packed with ideologues. Good luck, Amerika because you will really, really, really need it.
Sioux Rose
The record of this administration in mismanaging everything from make-war to the Katrina aftermath, with trillions in unexplained losses in Iraq (when not utilizing crony contractors who were not regulated via any form of oversight) to show for their "efforts," is cause enough to delay ALL operations until the next administration and make sure that REGULATION is put back into the equation, or this leak will remain open and all funds will pass through it into the blackhole created by those who could care less about the welfare of our nation or its people. It is sad that as another poser mentioned, the death to another nation didn't rouse this much response; but America certainly rises up when her checkbook is taken out of her purse without permission.
Don't take this personally, I'm just quoting Clinton, "It's the economy stupid!" Americans don't care if rednecks, blacks, immigrants, die destroying other countries, as long as they get their Big-Screen T.V.s and Humvees. It is when their personal material well being is threatened, they get angry and demand change, we are seeing this happen right now. The entire political spectrum, from progressive to libertarian, is united against the Bail out.
This is the moment for progressives. We need a practical plan for the economy, that will benefit ALL Americans, to bring the people to our side.
The moment has arrived. Will we rise to the occasion?
Do The World A Favor And Retire!
Green Retirement Planning
I retired at 57 in '04.
And not to appear senile, there is some truth how far 700 billion $ would go, divided equally, to each American adult, head of household, single mother, filing jointly, number of dependents with numbers for SocSec. Sounds like a TAX return. Call it that based on the fact Corporations haven't contributed a fucking dime in 40 years, but have no problem whatsoever with asking for our tax money.
Say, 1.5 million dollars down to .5 million dollars according to personal tax return for '08, which would not be taxable by any authority into oblivion. There would still be 300 billion + or- 25 billion.
And I dare say the American people deserve it a hell of a lot more than those fools on Wall St. oh! And no political office holder from local to fed gets a dime.
I can outdo you on age and working life. I'm 72. I retired after working and saving and paying my bills. I paid into social security for 46 years. Over half my income now is from social security.
I have never been so angry at my government in my life. One of the points of contention is executive pay. Bush wants to allow CEOs to continue to be paid a million a month. McCain is arguing for a mere $400,000 per year. The $400,000 a year is ten times more than I ever made in a year. Yet people like me are supposed to pay these peoples salaries.
It is clear that ordinary people are nothing. We are the great, unwashed peasantry who are only important as consumers or workers. Aside from that, we are no more important than factory farm animals.
The CEO of Walmart makes, in an eight hour period, what it takes the workers of that company an entire year to accumulate.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"The moment has arrived. Will we rise to the occasion?"
I wonder about this too. As we excoriate Americans in general, are we including ourselves? What have we, individual progressives, done? Besides posting on blogs, that is.
Will we rise to the occasion, indeed.
what a bunch of crap! The cowardly (hero) McCain is running from the debate because he knows he's f*cked! here's what i am doing: I am boycotting the debates if Ralph Nader is excluded. Have the courage of your convictions and vote NADER 2008. Otherwise you are just part of the problem.
Boycott the entire election process. It is corrupt, and it only steps to the beckoning of the corporate tentacle of the U.S. govorporation. Let if fall, and from the ashes, in a few decades, there may arise something better, something different, at least. Let us sit as the sidelines & critique those who still believe they can turn vinegar into wine. Throw out the vinegar, grow some new grapes and start over. This is the end, sayeth The Doors. There is precedent for this behavior. There are art and film critics who are not artists or scriptwriters who critique. There are sports writers who do not play sports. There are pundits who are not politicians, but they may be paid by them. So stop participating in a corrupt system. When the pollsters call, tell them you have politely bowed out. Every Christmas the christians can send a holiday card to their senators & representatives just to let them know they are still jerks for screwing the public. Hell, there are a lot of ways to participate as a critic of the Amerikan Way! Here, watch me. I'm not voting for McCain because he's a blundering fool with the mind equal in I.Q. to a box of nails. I'm not voting for Obama because he flipped on the FISA regulation. Some say that the alternative FISA bill would have been worse, but this is the fallacy of false alternatives. What have the Greens done in the past few years? Hell, they have a tough time just updating their damn web site! Libertarians. Ha! Two party system. Ha!
I have to go pull my money out of my bank now before it's taken over by the Feds.
I was too late getting my money out of WaMu. Now it's in the hands of JP Morgan.
I've been saying for years that if we want to really send a message to our "representatives" we should all boycott the election - what a farce elections are. In fact, I've been boycotting the elections since 1992, ever since I helped elected Clinton to office and he turned out to be a totalitarian. At the time I used to say Clinton was the most totalitarian president ever. Then along came his successor!!!
Instead of voting, just give money to organizations. They "vote" on your behalf all year long by bribing - oops, I mean lobbying - politicians.
Idealism - as in believing in a healthy electoral process - is nice. But that's not the way the political game is really played today. Actually, I'm kind of surprised that politicians are even noticing all the public protest against these Wall Street bailout plans.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
OK, we've seen voter turnout fall during the time you've been 'boycotting'.
What effect has that had?
It doesn't effect the elections at all. The winner is decided on the person with the most of the votes actually cast. There's no minimum turnout numbers to make an election valid. There's no minimum number of votes to get to win.
Lets say we got to the point where the only people who voted were the candidates, their spouses and their mothers and one lobbyist who has a stake in the election.
One candidate would get 4 votes. The other would get 3 votes. The candidate with 4 votes wins and takes the office. So, by not voting, you just let the lobbyist decide the election. There's no minimum turnout required, so this is a valid electionn and the crook selected by the lobbyist now gets a lot of power over everyone else.
That's a simple example, but that's the way it works. The decisions are made by those who participate. All you are doing by not voting is letting other people make the decision. Now you seem like you don't like the decisions they made. But, since you gave away your chance to have a say in things, is this a surprise?
Note: In the above I assume that the candidate's spouse and mother vote for that candidate. :)
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
First of all, what I want to see is zero people vote (or as close to zero as possible). Merely falling numbers of participants is, as you point out, not particularly interesting.
Secondly, as I said, I do vote, just not the way our rulers want us to vote. Voting at the polls is a distraction, meant to deceive the populace into feeling that they're participating, when in fact their vote is irrelevant. I vote with money, which is the fuel the political system really runs on.
Did electing a Democratic legislature across the board in 2006 get the U.S. out of Iraq? Do you recall that that election was more or less a referendum about just that topic, and that the sweeping Democratic win was as close as anything to a mandate to withdraw from Iraq? Were the wishes of the voters implemented?
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
To continue, if people believe that elections in the U.S. are “free,” here’s how the system really works:
1) The mainstream media, which is owned by a handful of multinational corporations, preselects the allowed candidates. In the case of this presidential campaign, the mainstream media early on decided to exclude Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader, leaving only Hillary, McCain and Obama as its anointed candidates. The mainstream media also controls political advertising, deciding what ads get aired and how much they will cost.
2) The party conventions further reduce the number of choices, sometimes resorting to juvenile measures, such as shutting off the microphone when people speak before an audience and mention non-sanctioned candidates, such as Ron Paul. The product of these conventions is two officially vetted, “safe” candidates that the people get to choose from.
3) Voters are then channeled into a carefully controlled polling system and supervised the whole way.
a) Voter registration drives are made illegal or onerous, especially when they seek to register unwelcome participants.
b) Polling places are gerrymandered to control participation. The number of polling places is reduced in unwelcome districts. “Snafus” cause excessive delays in some polling places. Of course, these are clever techniques to discourage unwelcome voters from sticking around to vote.
c) Should a voter manage to fight their way to the polling booth, some poll worker then looks up their name on a list of authorized voters and demands appropriate ID. The absence of one’s name on the list or “insufficient” identity documents will disqualify one from voting. And these requirements vary from place to place, at the whim of those controlling the process in each electoral district.
4) In the improbable event that a voter should actually get to vote, the machine can be easily rigged to change their vote without their knowledge. Or their ballot can get “lost” or be deemed “illegible” or improperly filled out.
5) Once in office, most politicians seem to develop a sudden partial deafness toward their nominal constituents, but somehow manage hear their true constituents, the tens of thousands of lobbyists trolling Washington, without a hearing aid.
So I say, why not bypass steps 1-4 and jump straight to step 5 and just give money to the lobbyists in Washington.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
Sorry, but I have one more thing to add. Consider your fellow voters. Do you really believe they are informed voters? I used to read the election "books" prior to elections and my college-educated mind could barely understand the propositions. I seriously doubted that the votes cast by most people voting on these propositions were anything more than random choices. And what about the politicians that people are voting for? I know more about Obama and McCain than probably 90% of their supporters. Do the majority of voters even know who or what they are voting for? Or are their votes little more than crap shoots? What good is an electoral system in which 90% of the votes might as well be random casts of the dice?
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
I would confess that your facts are, in the main, accurate sad to say. However, the solution at which you arrive by assimilating these facts leads us only to further hardship and farther from true democracy and equitable solutions to our problems..
Rahter than absent oneself from a process that is in need, and desperate need, of repair, a citizen is obligated to work towards solutions to those problems, otherwise she must claim her share of blame. I cannot stress enough that poor voter turnout, frustrations like you display, and alienation form a sick and sordid system are all normal reactions but at the same time they play into the hands of those who benefit most from nonparticipation.
What you suggest dooms us rather than saves us.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
snydly
The political spectrum is not a line with two ends, but a broken circle with the ends closer to each other than to the "middle". Purple could get 60% of the votes in this country.
"It doesn't effect the elections at all."
There may or may not be truth in what you say... IF.. you are only focused upon ONE election.
And that's the problem. No change occurs if you can only gain a perspective that is confined by any one given election. All you do is validate the system. That in itself would not be a real concern if the system wasn't designed to alienate, disenfranchise, segregate, discriminate, deny access and generally... protect itself from any and all meaningful change.
And that effort is in concert. It occurs by every rule and everyone within "The Party"... through a process of collusion. "The Party" disallows any real challenge to what it claims as its sole provenance.
So... go ahead and validate the system if you really believe that unthinking action furthers your political viewpoints. For those of us who desire real change, the only real option available is to abstain (and NO, that's not apathy)... or cast a protest vote.
It is a political act and it is our right to act politically. It is the only democratic recourse available in a system that refuses to consider ideology outside an exceedingly narrow corporatist structure. It is the one remaining free choice that we can make.
That you see little or no value in exercising our democratic right NOT to vote, speaks volumes. You parrot a message that is part and parcel to every controlling dogmatic definition of "democracy", that emanates from within "The Party". VOTE!! It doesn't matter who your candidate is.... just VOTE!!
They so desperately need your validation. Without it... think what might be perceived. But then, we are taught that it's only good manners to look away when we see someone without clothes... and from your post I'm certain that you agree with a philosophy that the pretension that everything is "OK" is de rigor.
Try looking around a bit with your eyes only *half* open... it's good exercise if nothing else. Otherwise you might just continue to convince yourself that your "blind" passion has some real meaning... and we all know that self-delusion can be a cruel mistress.
Just look at yourself.
Honestly, the majority of the US population has been "boycotting" elections for years by not showing up. Look where it got us. If the powerful discourage us from exercising our little bitty bit of power, they do not see it as a reproof, but as a relief. It would be best for them if we did away with voting altogether.
I always show up. I may vote for a candidate, a judge or an issue on the ballot. Sometimes I just go into the booth, pull the lever to the voting position, push it back to the finished position and walk out without having voted for anyone.
There is a difference between boycott and passivity. I urge everyone to show up and then vote their conscience. Even a null vote shows you are there and paying attention.
We need to build a big third party that stands for the people and organizes in between elections. I really liked Cindy Sheehan's attempts to build protest actions against the bailout.
Joe
snydly
The political spectrum is not a line with two ends, but a broken circle with the ends closer to each other than to the "middle". Purple could get 60% of the votes in this country.
Boycotting the political process is the worst idea possible.
The second line of this post points out the problem. It seems to imply that if we don't vote, the system will fail. But it won't. It only means that if we don't vote, then the winner is just decided by the people who did vote. All you are doing when you boycott the political process is that you let the crooks take control of the system.
Especially when there are good candidates out there running who you can vote for. That really makes this a bad idea. You can go vote for someone like Nader or McKinney. There are really good choices on the ballot. Why wouldn't you want to go vote for them?
If there was a rule in the system that required what Congress calls a "quorum", then boycotting might make sense. This would be a rule that basically said an election was not valid unless some minimum turnout percentage was met. If we had that rule, I could see boycotting as a strategy.
But we don't have a rule like that. The system won't collapse just because you don't vote. By not voting, all you did was give the crooks the control of the system. This is a really bad idea.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
You are right, there's no "quorum rule" in Elections. But I think if the "turnout" ever dropped below 50% in a Prez. election year things could get interesting.
Plus, why ISN'T there such a rule? How can someone claim the kind of right to rule that a modern President does when only 30 something percent of the Citizens have voted for them?
I think the crooks are already in control of the system.
I think it is important to remember that our vote this Nov 4th is not just a vote for Prez. but also for Congress, and Governor, and Council, and Sheriff, and Dogcatcher etc. etc.
I see no reason to boycott these votes, so while you're there take a minute to vote for Prez. too if you really want to, its not really all that much of a hassle.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
.
Nader can win....... The voters will decide.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
Ain't truth strange than fiction? Now it is the Dimocrats fighting to pass the Paulson plan in support of Bush, while the house regugs refuse to go along. Any doubt now who you should vote for in the upcoming election? Nader gets my vote, hands down.
Watching McCain since the Wall Street fiasco started, it's obvious he believes he's the only one who can fix the problem - it's his duty as commander-in-chief. When my mother was at this stage of alzheimers, she believed Ronald Reagan had sent her an invitation to be his special guest at his inauguration.
I've maintained damn near since I heard McCain speak that he has alzheimers. BTW: Where are the REST of McCain's Medical records? Hmmmmmm
George Bailey was never born. Welcome to Pottersville.
PK
.
Damn funny!!!! Damn humorous too!!!
.
The Republicans want MORE DEREGULATION! The Democrats want to give $700 billion to the mismanaged corporations. Only Third Party stands up to this mockery of our system.
All I hear about is how bad these corporations need this money, but no one has explained why. How many average Americans have enough money invested in these high risk firms that the FDIC doesn't have it insured? Can anyone explain why our economy cannot withstand the failure a few companies? Doesn't the economy as ways self-correct for business failure? Won't another, more competent company take their place?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
--Albert Einstein
The corporate CEO I work for sent out a message today. Kinda interesting. On one hand, he acknowledges that normally he'd be opposed to this.
But, his point is that its the drying up of credit that is causing the problems. Companies need to borrow money. In our cases, its our distributors who need to borrow money to buy the inventory from us that they'll eventually sell to customers for a profit. Its the fact that the lending is trying up that is causing the problem.
Of course, that leads to other discussions. Why is the lending drying up? Is it just because the banks are taking the economy hostage to get what they want? One thing that is true is that they can do this any time they want for no better reason than that.
But more likely, its the result of all the fraud that has gone on. Two things going on there. One is that every bank now has some 'toxic' debt on their books. Thus, they are all in a bad position where they need more cash and thus are unwilling to lend away the cash they have.
And, its also a lack of trust. The lack of regulation. The lack of oversight. The lack of any significant criminal penalties for fraud in these areas. All of this has created a situation where they can't judge the risk of a debt or a loan.
That's what's bizarre about the Republican proposal to me. Its that they want more deregulation. And the worst part to me is giving the Sec of Treasury incredible powers that can't be reviewed in any way. Given that a lack of trust and confidence is that core of the problem, that's what makes this plan seem more like just one big last attempt to steal a bunch of money before everything collapses.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
PS ... our CEO knows a lot about business. But I don't always agree with him politically. I'm just passing along what he said since it seems to try to answer the question I saw.
He did urge all the employees to contact Congress. I did so, but probably not with the message he wanted. :) My email was probably a lot closer to that of the protestors out in the street!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
When Bush is this desperate, you know it must be bad for what he once called the "HAVE MORES". The war in Iraq is not important; national health care is not important; ect. Since Buffet has bet 5 billion $ on the bailout,you can bet it is a done deal. Vote third party. You are wasting your vote otherwise.
So I'm out on the street yesterday protesting the Wall Street bailout, with my sign suggesting that they should be in jail,
and a drunken man passes by and says "Put Congress in jail, too."
My friend says, "Yeah, and the President and Vice-President, too."
At this the drunken man starts screaming, and I believe that this is what he said (it was difficult to understand)
"It's the Democrats fault! McCain went to Congress 3 years ago, and tried to fix things, but the goddamn Democrats wouldn't let him!"
When you wonder what total imbeciles could possibly still support Bush, that would be one of the 30% who are so ignorant, so misinformed, that they are unable to be part of the reality-based community.
http://wagelaborer.blogspot.com/2008/09/let-judge-set-bail-not-congress.html
Not that I support the Democrats. They are complicit in all the crimes that the ruling class has committed against the people of the US and the people of the world. And the crimes against the ecosystem.
If you choose to participate in the farce that is the US election, vote for Cynthia McKinney. That'll piss 'em off.
Amen,
Does anyone notice how Obama is always so happy to talk with Bush and the Republicans?
But, do you notice that he's not sitting down with the groups organizing the protests?
Says an awful lot about what he'll be as a President when you see who he's willing to talk to and who he isn't.
Meanwhile, notice that Nader is the only candidate in this piece who's talking any sense. Vote Nader, or Vote McKinney. Just stop voting for the crooks who've been bought off by the financial sector. You know damn well they won't be on our side. And surely its obvious that the root cause of the problem we now face is the constant willingness of citizens to vote for candidates who don't represent them but who are instead already bought off with millions of bribes, uh contributions.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Excellent Samson. The definition of political insanity: voting for the same old parties and expecting a different result. How in the hell can you expect justice when you vote for the unjust?
If Stalin and Lenin were alive today, they would be very pleased with the "socialized" bailout of the US "capitalist" commercial system. I can almost hear them saying with open arms,... "Come to Poppa."
(LOL)
Finally, the right and left agree on something.