Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fleecing What’s Left of the Treasury
The lobbyists and corporate lawyers, the heads of financial firms and the crooks who control Wall Street, all those who spent the last three decades assuring us that government was part of the problem and should get out of the way, are now busy looting the U.S. treasury. They are also working feverishly inside the Democratic and Republican parties to blunt any effective regulatory reform as they pass on their distressed assets to us. The process is stunning in its hubris and mendacity, and two of the most potent enablers of this unprecedented act of corporate welfare are John McCain and Barack Obama.
The federal government, reeling backward from the meltdown of financial markets, is now considering taking responsibility for the bad assets of numerous financial companies. But if that intervention does not include robust new mechanisms of regulation, accountability and control we will see nothing more than a massive taxpayer-funded bailout of stockholders and the financial industry.
The rhetoric of the two presidential candidates about the crisis has been filled with pious outrage about the abuses of Wall Street and short on actual solutions. John McCain and Barack Obama know, after all, who funds their campaigns. The financial industry has given $22.5 million in the current election cycle to Obama and $19.6 million to McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And the financial industry has come around to collect. Two of the biggest financial groups in Washington, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Mortgage Bankers Association, have been holding meetings with McCain and Obama's economic advisers. They are working with the campaigns to protect the unregulated power of financial industries and at the same time to shift bad debt to taxpayers. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Financial Services Roundtable, made up of the very banks and firms that got us into this mess, has developed draft legislation. The Roundtable has called a meeting this week with the chief executives of more than 50 banks, brokerages and insurers. The three-day meeting includes private, closed-door sessions on Thursday with Obama economic adviser Ian Soloman and McCain adviser Ike Brannon. Those hovering around Obama-economists like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Laura Tyson-bear as much responsibility for the dismantling of government regulation as those advising McCain.
If the financial-services industry is able to suck us dry, our assets, from our homes to our retirement investments, will continue to tumble. Taxes will go up. Jobs will be lost. The grim economic indicators will get worse. The dollar, which has already lost about a third of its value against the euro, will continue to plummet. The rate of foreclosures, one in every 416 U.S. households in August, will skyrocket. Consumer spending, the engine of the U.S. economy, will continue to decline. Industrial production, which has fallen for three consecutive quarters, will fall further. Unemployment, which shot up to 6.1 percent in August from 5.7 percent in July, will get worse. These tremors presage an earthquake.
Ralph Nader, who has spent his adult life battling corporations, understands more about the rise of the corporate state and the steady fleecing of American citizens by corporations than anyone else in the country. The core of his message is that Republicans and Democrats are hostage to corporate power.
Nader warned in a letter to Congress on July 23 that the federal government's bank insurance fund may be insufficient to handle the developing crisis in the banking industry. The letter was, at the time, greeted with indifference and ridicule. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., at a congressional hearing, mentioned the letter and assured those present that "Our banks are well capitalized, our deposit insurance fund is sound. There's absolutely no factual basis for saying that there's not money there to pay."
Two months later our federal bank insurance fund, which insures our bank deposits, is being swiftly emptied. The collapse of a huge commercial bank, such as Bank of America, which has assumed control of Merrill Lynch's losses with no real idea of how extensive these losses are, could see ordinary depositors wiped out.
Nader warned eight years ago that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were about to tank like the savings and loan industry of the 1980s and '90s. Because his warnings were ignored, taxpayers today face losing billions of dollars to cover these bad debts.
Nader, in a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox in 2006, criticized the exorbitant salaries of government-sponsored enterprise executives Jamie Gorelick, Daniel Mudd, Robert J. Levin and Timothy Howard. He noted in his letter that their financial incentives were in direct conflict with consumer financial security. A grave moral hazard was created by the accounting manipulations they sanctioned, Nader said. These manipulations benefited their personal wealth, yet there was no penalty for being caught.
Nader has called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt. He demands an end to corporate subsidies and unconditional taxpayer bailouts of corporations. And he has called for aggressive prosecution of corporate criminals.
"Given the contrast between the ‘free market' ideology of the Republicans and the corporate or state socialism that is their increasing practice, the time is ripe for full Congressional hearings next year on the organized power, greed and lack of regulation that is shaking the foundations of Wall Street," Nader said in prepared remarks delivered to editors at The New York Times' Washington bureau.
Nader has come up with 10 market reforms that he says need to be implemented immediately along with any bailout. These reforms are:
- No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants.
- No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out.
- No golden parachutes or get-out-of-jail-free cards for guilty executives.
- No bailouts without public hearings.
- Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products, as is done in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.
- Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below-median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to "rent to own" their homes at fair market value rates.
- Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15 to 20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.
- Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as make sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the president and answerable to Congress.
- Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.
- Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives, to deter casino-style capitalism.
You can vote for Obama or, if you are really into self-delusion, you can support McCain. But you owe it to yourself, even if you erroneously blame Nader for the election of George W. Bush, to remember these Nader reforms. Hold them up against the proposed reforms that will soon be issued by the McCain and Obama camps. If the Nader reforms are not adopted, if we bail out our corporate masters with hundreds of billions of tax dollars without instituting draconian market reform and launching criminal prosecution, we will be left to bear the cross of corporate malfeasance. We will pay for corporate crime. We will leave those who robbed us free to plunder.
- Posted in
178 Comments so far
Show AllThere is a great open letter on Counterpunch to Michael Moore about his complete ethics reversal since 2000.
Moore calls Nader "crazy."
Nader sure seems to be clear thinking when he speaks. Government responsibility? An end to corporate welfare?
Yup--crazy talk if you support republicans or democrats.
That Nader sure has a bunch of crazy talk. Did I mention that Nader talks crazy about having universal health care, ending the war and occupation, stopping corporate corruption. He should just stop that crazy talk.
Good thing he won't be in the debates where he could spread his crazy talk to the masses.
It would seem that in order to uphold the Constitution the Bush administration is demanding a citizen based tax revolt.
HA! hold that thought, old goat. anybody notice? you call this "appropriate response."
A tax revolt? Your kidding right? What we need is to put this sick dog down for good. I don't want a tax revolt. I want a full on, balls-to-the-wall, win or die trying revolution. These devils in human skins have had their day. Twelve thousand years of brutality and mayhem has proven that we were better off the previous 3 million years before we were civilized.
"Society is in every state a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." --- Thomas Paine, Common Sense
I'm with ya.
I guess the next great "bubble" (transfer of wealth) is going to be lawyers? I better sign up for that online law degree, right away. I think Wasilla U. has a quick, easy course.
By the way, now that Wall Street is history, what offshore country does the center of finance get outsourced to? London? Brussels, Hong Kong? Dubai?
Nader's points are well taken. He certainly has a history of supporting those of us who are not of the ruling elite. Yet, the duopoly that he refers to has rigged the deck so that no third party will ever be able to gain a foothold in Amerika. So, We the People are left with, essentially, one political party. The Democrats are simply the less extreme wing of the Republicrat Party aka the Fascist Party. So the dilemma remains. Do we vote for Nader or McKinney knowing they can only garner about 5 percent of the vote, or do we hold our collective noses and vote for the lesser of the evils? Of course, this assumes that the elections haven't already been decided by the oligarchs that run the nation from their smokey back rooms.
If Ralph Nader had a nickel (or maybe "vote" is more appropriate here) for every time someone said this he'd be president. Just vote for the person who has earned your vote and we'll all be fine.
Exactly!
Exactly! And who planted that idea that you couldn't vote for Nader because our system doesn't support a third party? The democrats. Hmmm.
That will be the truth until we create a viable third party. Voting third party is a step in that direction. If third parties get %15 of the vote, would that be the start of a statement? I think so. The corporate elite are working overtime to marginalize third parties, and every time a 'progressive' states that they wish they could vote for Nader but won't, it makes the corporates job that much easier.
Vote Nader, vote Third Party, don't support the corporate elite and their candidates.
I can give you 700 billion reasons to do so (4000 for each and every person living in the US).
so it goes
www.NotOneMore.US
Vote for Nader, get McCain.
The duopoly may have "rigged the deck" but it is the "lesser evilists" who stand in the way of replacing the deck.
For me the lesser evil argument amounts to "a wolf in sheep's clothing is better than a wolf without it". I respectfully disagree.
The Democratic Party serves a crucial function for the ruling class, the economic elite.
Should things start "heating up" on the left, should economic turmoil, social unrest and the class tensions that inevitably occur given the inequalities inherent in a capitalist economy -- should such status quo-endangering rumblings develop into broad-based, progressive movements, the Democratic Party is there to co-opt, dilute and eventually betray those democratic, broad-based movements.
The first thing the Democratic Party says to the people committed to these movements is "T.I.N.A." -- "There Is No Alternative" -- that is to say, you have no alternative to the two-party choice; so you need to let us, the Democratic Party, speak on your behalf.
The Democratic Party thus becomes a political "safety valve" for any status quo-endangering movements. ... Acting on behalf of the economic elite, the Democratic Party's historic role has been to make sure that potentially radical, revolutionary movements don't get out of hand, don't go any further than the confines of their oligarchic agenda.
The Democratic Party:
-- sold out the workingclass in the 1870s (re. Tammany Hall).
-- sold out the Populist movement in the 1890s.
-- sold out the labor movement in the 1930s.
-- sold out the civil rights movement.
-- sold out the environmentalist movement.
-- and sold out the antiwar movement -- many, many times.
The Democratic Party has betrayed the antiwar movement four times -- count 'em FOUR times! -- in the past six years!!!!
1.) In 2002, the Democratic Party told the voting public that that year's Congressional elections would *not* be about whether the US should invade Iraq.
Invading Iraq was a done-deal, a bipartisan decision.
Instead, we were told, and in no uncertain terms, that the 2002 Congressional elections would be about “other issues.”
In other words, peace was, officially, “off the table.”
2.) In 2004, what could have been a national referendum on Iraq -- a war candidate, George Bush, versus a (sort of) peace candidate, Howard Dean -- soon became a choice between two war candidates, Bush and Kerry.
3.) In 2006, the Democrats captured both houses of Congress, chiefly because millions of people voted Democratic specifically to have the Democrats end the war in Iraq.
In the days that followed, the Democratic leadership wasted no time making it clear that ending the War wasn’t going to happen.
4.) Which brings us to 2008 and Barack Obama, the king of the con men.
"Barack The Peace Candidate" has now become "Barack The Warmonger." How thankful we should be that Barack Obama has “clarified” his position on Iraq -- his position now being that if the commanders in the field say we should stay in Iraq, we stay.
(Now all we have to do is find a commander in Iraq who's a dove.)
That Obama’s now-clarified position is essentially the same as that of John McCain and George Bush has yet to make an impact on mainstream media. Doubtless, it never will.
In short, Obama wants to be a war president just as bad as George Bush and John McCain want to be war presidents. Obama supports two wars now in progress -- Iraq and Afghanistan; and has indicated his willingness to engage in two more wars --Iran and Pakistan -- with the use of nuclear weapons "not off the table."
The Democratic-Republican duopoly will never allow a national election to become a referendum on war or peace. Why? Because they know damn well that the American public, if given a chance, will vote for peace every time.
See the following site, and tell me how you would like to see your government spend all these billions of dollars -- on war, or on health, education and welfare -- http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Finally, to help you decide who to vote for, cavedweller -- the lesser of the two evils or else Nader or McKinney -- consider the following (and, forgive me, I've made this point elsewhere in this thread):
Ralph Nader polled 2.7% of the votes in 2000. Given that 45-50% of eligible voters *don't* vote, here's what the Election Day results could look like with just a few more percentage points for Nader and Company --
Obama (or McCain)-- 21%
McCain (or Obama)-- 19%
Nader, McKinney, and anyone to the left of them -- 10%
Not voting -- 50%
I would prefer the above, even if it meant John McCain in the White House, because 60% of the electorate rejecting the Democratic/Republican duopoly would shake the political establishment to its corporatist roots.
Notice, too, in the above projection, that 10% is not that far away from 19% and 21%.
A right-leaning, corporate-beholden Obama in the White House would do nothing but continue America, and all America is supposed to stand for, on its fatal drift to the right.
So perhaps the choice, properly-framed, should be -- either reject the Democratic/Republican duopoly, or else kiss our collecive asses, along with the rest of the planet, adieu.
wsws.org site
Extremely well stated as well as persuasively argued. The web site that you mention is also, unlike Barack Obama, one of the most progressive web sites on the Internet.
The US Government should be nationalizing outright any company that requests a “bailout.” Government bureaucracy could not possibly do a worse job than private bureaucracy has done.
ClassAct:
Exactly! This whole disatrous train wreck was brought on by the same people back in Reagan's day that who were chanting about the evils of "big gubment." It just picked up steam during President Bozo's administration as the train went off the tracks and plunged down the mountain.
Sioux Rose
The shifting of the financial burden for playing fast and loose on Wall St to taxpayers is understood by us in this forum, but how many media outlets are going to tell the truth? We have already seen theater of the absurd examples of Americans voting AGAINST their own best interests because they do not understand what's going on. Events are spoonfed to them as soundbites that seldom get at the true crux of issues, or the cause factors. They hear fear, they hear "solution," and they go back to sleep, letting "the experts" handle it.
As others in this forum have pointed out, when things get painful enough some may risk their own security to protest or worse... it's a shame that it's not till the gun is pointed at the head of too many, that they then see fit to react; but I hold media accountable. It's so far removed from its role as "the 4th estate." In Mexico, Italy and Australia, media moguls understood that owning the press/TV/radio is the best way to ensure specific outcomes in supposedly open/free/democratic elections. It's now happened here.
If this "Soak The Suckers 2008 Plan" goes through as written, then a de facto return to slavery in the United States has taken place. Debt is a form of slavery, a very effective one, and we can all go out into the fields, pick cotton (or, more likely, corn) and be bullwhipped by the never ending succession of Repimplican and Germ-o-crat politicians, all named Simon LaGree.
C'mon...what's left of the treasury? Show me the money! And I DON'T mean "just printed". Hey, I'm all for Nader..don't get me wrong. But, if you think there is any money left in the treasury, short of one HUGE damn liquidation sale...PULLLEEEAAASSSEE!
We have a nice "three stikes" Law for shop lifters that puts a lot of poor suckers into the prison system.
Why is it that white collar criminals, and military/industrial fraud gets the soft touch?
I propose a "reign of terror", a kind of information-based open season on these so- called executives.
Disgorge or dispatch. Why not? We love sports right? we love our talk shows, yes?
What needs to be distinguished from sea to shining sea-- FRAUD, is it ,or is it NOT a crime?
This is just too farcical. Obama’s advisors, such as Robert Rubin, while in government, set up this pyramid scheme, jump ship to the banks to reap the rewards, and now are offering up themselves as the candidates best qualified to manage their own bailouts.
This story is running neck and neck with the Chinese poison milk drama as far as outlandishness is concerned.
.
Ralph Nader :
"Capitalism will never fail because Socialism will always be there to bail it out."
.
duplicate; sorry.
Determined to prevent or postpone the next depression, the "overlords" and their economic managers have allowed debt, obligations and other claims on real wealth to accumulate to fantastic levels, way beyond those of 1929. There is no precedent in American history for such a mountain of fictitious value or its inevitable collapse, but perhaps the fabled meltdown of the German economy in 1923 may hold some lessons for us.
Every dollar of debt or obligation, public or private, is someone else's "property", and the struggle to manage the collapse and restart the economy will be messy and brutal. It could be restarted by wiping out the debt, by decree or by hyperinflation, but its owners will fight tooth and nail against any move in that direction. The question for everyone will be: at whose expense will this crisis be worked out?
Already, a foreshadowing of this struggle can be seen in the debates in Congress. Can we get the government to act for us to prevent mass starvation, mass homelessness, the interruption of essential services? Will it bail out the people and preserve our buying power, put us to work doing things that need to be done? Or will the super rich prevail, salvaging their position by plundering the remaining public assets, opening wide the faucet for tax money to flow directly into their pockets, starving the people? Will they be able to crush our resistance with police, vigilantes and concentration camps, diverting us with wars and manufactured threats, or will we reclaim and defend our democracy?
This is nothing less than a revolutionary crisis, and I fear that we, the American people and those who would lead us, are in no way prepared for it. The last depression is nearly beyond living memory, and even the children of those who lived through it are growing old. The radical leadership of the working class, built and tempered through a century of struggle, was largely shattered in the '50's, its legacy and hard-won wisdom nearly forgotten outside of a segment of the labor movement and some college history departments.
The working people have bought wholesale into the idea that what makes us special is being Americans, that there is no working class, that we are all "middle class", except for the poor, "illegals" and others "not like us", threats to our "American way of life". With unions legally hamstrung and representing only 7% of the private workforce, and with maybe 98% of the people getting their news from the corporate media, most of us experience our local struggles and hardships as if we were alone and outnumbered. This makes us very vulnerable to lies and distractions, unable to focus on our real interests or to see who our real enemies are.
We need to learn fast, and let go of our illusions and excuses for inaction. We need to get much more organized, fast, and get our hands dirty with the hard work or organizing in our neighborhoods and workplaces. And we need to get our communication lines with the millions up and running, fast. The mass media will be worse than no help at all.
Finally, we urgently need a solid analysis to guide us in thinking about what is happening and why, and where we might be headed. This analysis must be a useful tool, relevant to the challenges we face, one that guides us in building unity, and that helps us think strategically and build winning alliances. An analysis informed by a deep look at history, at which strategies led to wins and which to defeats.
As we read the articles in CommonDreams and elsewhere, we need to notice which thinkers exemplify this, and share and discuss their work!
If anyone still doubts that we have been thrown into a fight for survival, it's wake-up time
Chris Horton
Thank you Chris Horton. What an excellent post. Sure is encouraging to see, along with the flaming, name calling and other tantrums so prevalent in these discussions these days, there are solid signs of intelligent life out there. I'm prayin enough people awaken to this railroad to oblivion to either throw a big switch or get enough people safely bailed off the train to establish sane life on planet earth.
"This is nothing less than a revolutionary crisis, and I fear that we, the American people and those who would lead us, are in no way prepared for it."
This full frontal class war attack on US citizens through the front doors of the Treasury should be viewed as no less than a display of callous disregard leading to total cynical contempt for the welfare of at least 95% of all Americans.
Freddie and Fannie were the trial balloons. AIG was the reinforcement. Those fiascos led directly to a "See, I told you they wouldn't complain" attitude that has taken us to Congress approved pillage and rape.
That our political representatives would rush headlong into the CheneyOilCo's plan to cripple the middle class for decades, provides clear indication as to why impeachment has been off the table.
They are all complicit.
Our history clearly defines taxation without representation as an criminality that demands action on the part of all Americans. Perhaps tea isn't the only thing that should be spilled. Maybe we should start now.
No bailouts. Throw them overboard.
Chris Horton,
along with this Chris Hedges commentary,
your post is organized, enlightening, and helpful.
Chris Horton
I always pay attention to your posts as I think they are some of the most articulate and well thought out of any I have seen in my, admittedly limited, wanderings on the net, but I think much of the analysis you say we need has already been done in multiple articles, such as the one leading this thread, and posts, and the verdict is in - the "duopoly" is in charge and is leading us over the cliff. What further sort of analysis is needed? An analysis of the alternatives? That would be fine, but first we have to disavow the TINA strain and its offspring "lesser evil" which echoes reverberate throughout these discussions. These strains preclude discussion outside of the very narrow parameters drawn by the MSM that CDers reportedly disparage. The "lesser evil" argument is a bit more subtle in this regard in that it purports to be an effort to "think strategically", as you encourage us to do, but "thinking strategically" is too often another way of slipping in "the ends justify the means" approach whose victories, as often as not, are Pyrrhic ones as the ends too often get lost in the "cleverness" of strategy and wind up backfiring. I have seen this happen too often in the causes I have attached myself to.
As to "which strategies lead to wins and which to defeats", I think first you have to define what it means to "win". For many it seems to mean just getting more representatives of their party, whichever that may be, elected to office. Been there, done that, not impressed. For many it seems to mean just throwing the "other" guys/gals out. Been there, done that, even less impressed. For others (perhaps yourself?), it seems to be building a firm (?) progressive base locally BEFORE moving on to higher levels, but, in my humble opinion, not only do we not have time to do that (we have wasted SO much time already in arguing about "strategy"), but many of our problems cannot be tackled at the local level, and attempts to do so, while necessary and commendable, will be, and are, continually and often fatally, undermined by mechanisms higher up the food chain. I realize that Mother Nature is the ultimate model for successful system building and she started, literally, from the ground up, but remember that evolution probably involved, not just slow, steady incremental changes, but moments of "punctuated equilibrium" in which "progress" only came about as a result of great leaps. I think it's time, nay, past time for one of those.
My "strategy", to the extent that my modus operandi can be described as one, in furthering a "movement" is fairly simple and consists of two fundamental parts. The first, as I alluded to above, is to combat, wherever and as often as I can, the TINA doctrine and its wholly or partially owned subsidiary, the lesser evil mantra, under the firmly held belief that you cannot achieve what you cannot conceive and as long as we cannot conceive the possibility of anything better than a "lesser evil" or an "at least it's better than" alternative, we will never get where we all, or at least most of us, know we need to go. Obeisance to the TINA doctrine is THE fundamental obstacle to making ANY kind of change and the lesser evil subset is the main obstacle to making any kind of MEANINGFUL change.
The second part is to support any progressive movement or candidate at any level no matter what color banner it/he/she is flying or what letter is on the banner. Strict party, or even candidate, loyalty has caused the death of more "movements" than you can shake a stick at. The tenets of such a progressive movement with regard to war, healthcare, economics, etc., which I think have been pretty well fleshed out, are my guidelines for choosing. And, usually. there is really no contest.
I first revolted against the duopoly in '96, over NAFTA, and though I have been tempted to succumb to lesser evil arguments since, the arguments I have used to keep myself steadfast have only been more and more confirmed over the years - I have been paying attention, believe me, as independent candidate supporters must forever be on their toes in this hostile political climate.
It IS past time, and the longer we wait, the more we hesitate waiting for more analysis, the more difficult it will be and the longer it will take to do what we all really know we need to do.
The only way Nader will even be able to try pushing his excellent reforms through is to vote him into office. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are going to bother with his reforms anyway. They're too too corrupt to even listen let alone show respect for Main Street.
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!! WORLD PEACE !!!!!!! End THE WARS......
.
coyote sez: "Is there a broken record in here?"
At this important crossroads in the history of our experiment in democracy, we face extremely important decisions. Chris Hedges criticism of the current bought system, as well as his support for Nader and his proposals, is echoed often here by posters at CD. Unfortunately the system is so rigged and corrupt, from the complicit media to the bought out Congress, on up to the now ever so powerful executive, that I think it is going to get much worse before there is any chance of improvement.
I've never wavered in my support of Nader. If we don't somehow cut to the core of the current corruption, clean house, literally, and end this nonsense, then we as "The People" are over. When historians, years from now, sift through the rubble of the early 21st century, Ralph Nader will emerge as a heroic voice of clarity and reason, and they will wonder why so many refused to listen.
Yes, I agree. How can we be mistaken to vote for a man who is the century's most outspoken champion for democracy, justice, and fair play when we know for a fact that - as Chris Hedges pointed out in his article on Common Dreams today - the financial industry has given $22 million to Obama and $19 million to McCain. Robert Rubin was one of Clinton's advocates for deregulation, now he is Obama's advisor.
History will not blame us if Obama loses. The corporate duopoly will be.
This is a two-party stink fest. Where do you draw the line? They are boiling us like frogs.
I'm going to do everything I can to at least get Nader into the debates. Send him money for crying out loud!
Yes, I agree. How can we be mistaken to vote for a man who is the century's most outspoken champion for democracy, justice, and fair play when we know for a fact that - as Chris Hedges pointed out in his article on Common Dreams today - the financial industry has given $22 million to Obama and $19 million to McCain. Robert Rubin was one of Clinton's advocates for deregulation, now he is Obama's advisor.
History will not blame us if Obama loses. The corporate duopoly will be.
This is a two-party stink fest. Where do you draw the line? They are boiling us like frogs.
I'm going to do everything I can to at least get Nader into the debates. Send him money for crying out loud!
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!! WORLD PEACE !!!!!!! End THE WARS......
.
Check www.OpenSecrets.org for unspun facts about campaign contributions to all Presidential candidates.
It would seem apparent that this Obama fanatic believes that those who have read this article are either too stupid or too trusting to click on the link that he provided. It turns out that the site that he links to is the same exact site that Chris Hedges provides in his article, which would seem to indicate that Mr. ctrl-z jumped to the comments section without even bothering to read the article by Chris Hedges. When one goes to the Center for Responsible Politics and clicks on the section entitled "Bundlers for McCain, Obama Are Among Wall Street's Tumblers" it reveals information that Mr. ctrl-z conveniently overlooks such as the fact that:
"The securities and investment industry is Obama's second-largest source of bundlers, after lawyers, and at least 56 individuals have raised at $8.9 million for his campaign. Bundlers in the larger finance, insurance and real estate sector have collected at least $13.4 million for Obama, making it his most generous sector."
Obama's list of bundlers includes several executives at Citigroup, who together have raised between $60,000 and $1.5 million. Executives at Lehman Brothers, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs [Obama's number-one donor] are also in the mix."
"Overall, the securities and investment industry has contributed about $10 million to Obama and $7 million to McCain."
When one adds up the figures cited in the first paragraph of the article, one finds, unsurprisingly [except, apparently, to ctr-z] that those numbers are in close proximity with the numbers given by Chris Hedges when he stated that "the financial industry has given $22.5 million in the current election cycle to Obama..." All this proves, of course, how closely Obama is tied to Big Business and Wall Street, no matter how much spin ctrl-z tries to employ. Ctrl-z has been hoisted on his own petard while unintentionally proving Chris Hedges right about Obama's ties to Wall Street. It should be obvious to all that this commenter is a charlatan who has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Error-ll is just pissed that I caught him lying about donationations to Obama. There is an article about bundlers on the page I gave the link to. To Error-ll that's proof I'm hiding it.
If you want to see the numbers without the spin go to the totals for the Obama campaign. You'll see donations from MoveOn.org, Harvard university etc.
Read the bundling article, then go to the total contributions. The bundled numbers are a small portion of overall donations.
www.opensecrets.org
Gee Error-ll, lying and then getting pissed you where caught. You need a time out.
Sorry, but for me the fact that he receives donations from Harvard and MoveOn is neither comforting nor reassuring and, to my mind, does nothing to shore up any claim to progressive credentials.
Aquifer
Exactly. Nor, despite the claims such as that of the Obama fanatic, does it obviate the fact that, as Chris Hedges correctly points out in his article, that "the financial industry has given $22.5 million in the current election cycle to Obama."
Agreed!
MoveOn supported Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. Of course they support Obama this time 'round.
MoveOn is a member-in-good-standing of the soft-left. They're "cruise missile liberals" -- DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists.) In many ways, they are more a part of the problem than the far right, in that they perpetuate the consistently-damaging notion that real change will occur by voting for the Democratic/Republican duopoly. It won't.
As for Obama being in the pocket of Corporate America, this is an excerpt from a recent article by Bill Van Auken:
“ …leading Democrats—including Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Senator Christopher Dodd, head of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Charles Schumer, chair of the Joint Economic Committee—have signaled their support for a massive, wholesale bailout of Wall Street through the creation of a new federal agency to buy up all of the banks’ worthless mortgage-backed assets.
"The plan has been widely compared to the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) nearly 20 years ago to deal with losses from the savings and loans crisis of the 1980s. However, there are critical differences. The sums involved in absorbing the mortgage-backed securities are astronomically higher. Moreover, while the RTC was established to deal with the fallout from savings banks that had already failed, the new agency is designed to bail out ongoing financial institutions that have profited off of these “toxic” speculative investments.
"Reports that the enactment of such a plan is imminent sent stocks soaring by 410 points Thursday, the market’s biggest rally in six years. The exuberance on the floor of the stock exchange amounted to the celebration of a system in which massive profits accumulated by Wall Street’s wealthiest by means of reckless speculation and outright criminality remain privatized, while their losses are socialized, with American working people forced to foot the bill.
"Obama and the Democrats are full partners in this system. Behind all of the Democratic candidate’s rhetoric about Wall Street not “minding the store” and how “CEOs got greedy,” his campaign enjoys ample support from finance capital, and his administration would, no less than the Republicans, represent its fundamental interests.
"The Obama campaign has raised close to $10 million from the Wall Street investment houses, nearly 50 percent more than the amount they have given to Republican McCain. Three senior executives at the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers raised more than $1.5 million for the Democrat.
"The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions, listed Goldman Sachs as the top source of campaign funds for the Obama campaign. The watchdog group added that Wall Street’s stake in the Democratic candidate is probably even larger. “Since his campaign has ignored repeated requests... to disclose his bundlers’ employers and occupations,” it pointed out, “these figures are probably undercounts.”
"In addition to Wall Street, the Obama campaign has raised some $13.4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector and $2 million from the commercial banks, again outstripping McCain.
"Given this financial banking, Obama’s posturing as a champion “Main Street” and the scourge of “special interests” is just as absurd as McCain’s vow to fight “greed” on Wall Street.
"Equally dishonest is the Democratic candidate’s repeated assertion that the present crisis is the outcome of policies pursued simply over the past eight years. Conveniently ignored is the fact that the frontal assault on the working class that lay the foundations for the present economic setup in America was initiated under the Democratic Carter administration 30 years ago and that the most sweeping deregulation of the financial markets was carried out under the Democrat Clinton.
"The results of this process, which has seen the increasing deindustrialization of the US economy, the ever growing weight of financial parasitism and the unprecedented widening of social inequality, will not be cured by the modest increase in regulation being proposed by some Democrats.
"Obama has given his backing to the bailouts carried out to date, while remaining silent on plans for a government takeover of mortgage-related investments. The Democratic candidate has said nothing about holding accountable those who profited off of this unfolding calamity, much less proposing that their profits be seized.
"In his speech Wednesday in Nevada, Obama declared that the tumultuous events on Wall Street represented a “final verdict” on the “economic philosophy” of McCain and the Republicans, while proclaiming his conviction that “our free market has been the engine of America’s great progress. It’s a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world.”
"What “free market’ is he talking about? It is “free” only in the sense that society exercises no control over its predatory and socially destructive misallocation and misappropriation of the wealth created by the working class. …
"The devastating crisis that is gripping Wall Street and the world’s financial markets is a verdict on this “free market.” The capitalist system, based on private ownership of the productive forces, production for profit and the subordination of all social needs to the accumulation of private wealth, is threatening to unleash a catastrophe upon the working class in the US and around the world.
"One thing is certain, the plans to rescue Wall Street that are now being prepared with Democratic support will be paid for by working people, through the destruction of their jobs and living standards and the gutting of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and what little else remains of social benefits in America.
"A new social catastrophe even greater than the Great Depression can be averted only through a break with the Democratic Party and the fight for a socialist program that ends the subordination of the economy to the dictates of private profit. Only in this way can the vast wealth created by working people be utilized for the benefit of all. This is the program fought for only by the Socialist Equality Party."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s19.shtml
Gee, according to wsws.ort it looks like investment bankers are Obama's biggest contributors. And if you slice the pie by bundled contributions, it's true.
So did investment bankers give more to Obama than any other industry? No.
Slice the pie by industry and you get a very different picture.
Rank Industry Total
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $24,060,136
2 Retired $23,180,767
3 Education $10,375,038
4 Securities & Investment $9,873,356
5 Business Services $6,746,937
6 Real Estate $6,421,385
7 Health Professionals $5,852,212
8 Misc Business $5,411,083
9 TV/Movies/Music $5,161,298
10 Computers/Internet $4,258,226
11 Misc Finance $3,970,218
12 Civil Servants/Public Officials $3,850,719
13 Printing & Publishing $3,478,240
14 Democratic/Liberal $2,899,338
15 Other $2,097,412
16 Commercial Banks $2,081,809
17 Hospitals/Nursing Homes $1,681,256
18 Non-Profit Institutions $1,563,082
19 Construction Services $1,407,576
20 Insurance $1,290,434
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Educators, Retired people and lawyers all gave more than those in securities and investments.
It's easy to move complex figures around to make them say what you want. The poster above wants to make you think Obama is in the pocket of the financial industry, so they slice the data in a way that makes it look like that's true. Yet the site they're pulling figures from also says of Obama:
"He's had no problem bringing in the money or appealing to new donors, and has relied on small online donors and bigger donors nearly equally, which he'll continue to do in months to come. He's also turning to Hillary Clinton's donors—and her bundlers—and asking them for their financial support."
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
"Relied on small online donors and bigger donors nearly equally."
Doesn't exactly sound like someone in the pocket of big business does it?
Just out of curiosity, do you know when "small online donors" gave most of their money, as opposed to when the bigger donors gave most of theirs?
ctrl-z,
You obviously didn't read either the article I referenced or the excerpt I took from it.
I'll post the relevant excerpt again:
"The Obama campaign has raised close to $10 million from the Wall Street investment houses, nearly 50 percent more than the amount they have given to Republican McCain. Three senior executives at the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers raised more than $1.5 million for the Democrat.
"The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions, listed Goldman Sachs as the top source of campaign funds for the Obama campaign. The watchdog group added that Wall Street’s stake in the Democratic candidate is probably even larger. “Since his campaign has ignored repeated requests... to disclose his bundlers’ employers and occupations,” it pointed out, “these figures are probably undercounts.”
"In addition to Wall Street, the Obama campaign has raised some $13.4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector and $2 million from the commercial banks, again outstripping McCain.
"Given this financial banking, Obama’s posturing as a champion “Main Street” and the scourge of “special interests” is just as absurd as McCain’s vow to fight “greed” on Wall Street." ... Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s19.shtml
You may also want to read the following article at the Bloomberg.com site, "Obama Bests McCain Among Bush-Backing Bankers, Drug Companies"
-- http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aRCVqfSQ43Eo&refer=home --
Quoting from that article,
"Democrat Barack Obama has captured $9.6 million in donations from employees working for securities, mortgage and drug companies, compared with McCain's $6.6 million ... according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group in Washington."
"Obama has received $8.9 million and McCain $6.3 million from (brokers, bankers and traders in the securities industry) from Jan. 1, 2007 through June 30 of this year, according to the center. ...
"Obama, 47, also fares better than McCain among donors in the pharmaceutical industry. While drug-company executives and employees have given 52 percent of the industry's money for the 2008 elections to Republicans, Obama has received more than three times as much as McCain, $450,094 to $132,575.
"Republican lobbyist John Feehery ... said that industries now snubbing his party will start giving to Republicans again.
"'They'll be hedging their bets and as McCain looks stronger, they'll be giving just as much money to him as they have to Obama,'' he said."
Sounds to me like Corporate America would be happy with either one of them.
I wonder why.
Maybe it's because whichever of the two major party candidates wins, one thing Corporate America knows for sure -- given the millions of dollars the economic elite has contributed to both corporatist candidates, it won't be the "oligarchic-few" who will suffer as a result of the current financial meltdown. ... Instead, those who will suffer will be the "democratic-many."
I don't see a need to repeat myself.
Are you really a socialist? If so, what do socialists have against Obama? Is it just that he's not a socialist? What do you think of McCain?
The US electorate makes most of its daily decisions (what they eat, what they watch, what they drive, who they screw) based on what Madison Ave. marketeers tell them to do. Since Madison Ave. also markets elections, The US electorate is unlikely to suddenly wake up and vote for somebody who represents their own best interests.
A very important point.
I think many of those who comment here are somehow or another insulated from this truth.
Things are much worse than we often allow. Many of the People are so lacking in self-determination that they continue to eat mainly heavily-processed, heavily-advertised "food" that is making them heavy and killing them slowly.
And yet, we expect these same people to understand the complex workings of central government, through the filter of History, the Constitution, the concept of Rights, etc., etc. ?
There will be little progress until the control of the Unity Machine is either put into the hands of the People or the machine is abandoned altogether.
Have Fun,
-matti.
matti,
The first way to *guarantee* political disaster is to be cynical about the ability and potential of the general population.
People are not as dumb or as "lacking in self-determination" as you think they are.
They're simply misinformed and ill-informed.
People in countries far worse off than the United States -- with far more oppressive oligarchs, and with virtually no democratic mechanisms in place -- have, nevertheless, achieved stunning progressive victories.
Whereas, we in the United States have a great *many* democratic tools we can use -- but, for the most part, we don't use them!
Lech Walesa and his comrades created a revolution in Poland -- peacefully, and with absolutely no democratic tools at their disposal -- none! No free elections, no open courts, no access to media, no Bill of Rights, no history of free speech and freedom of assembly. Yet they brought the Soviet Union to its knees.
History is filled with similar examples. What democratic tools did Gandhi have? India was a colony. What democratic mechanisms could he and his supporters utilize? Yet, they were victorious. ... Why? ... Because the people who were with Gandhi were cynical and pessimistic? Because they said: "Hey, we suffered a setback, so now let's all go back home and give up." Of course not.
Yes, the political system in the United States has been corrupted. So what should we do, allow that to continue? Blame it on a deficiency that exists in the general population? That's a sure road to fascism.
We have so much here in the United States -- politically as well as materially -- and yet how easily so many people just "give up." Most other advanced industrial countries have strong, vibrant, third party movements; quite a few have coalition governments -- and yet many in America don't believe that even those two modest goals are possible.
I'm afraid your post gives a great deal of comfort and satisfaction to the oligarchic-few. Your pessimism and negativity are exactly what they hope for. THE PESSIMISM AND THE CYNICISM OF THE GENERAL POPULATION ARE THEIR LIFEBLOOD. THEY CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT IT.
As Ralph Nader put it: "Pessimism is a function of inactivity." And inactive, pessimistic, cynical "sheep" are precisely what those in power want the general population to be.
With all due respect, I'm afraid their response to your post would be: "Mission Accomplished!"
We've had decades of inept, fraudulent government and crony capitalism ever since the so-called "Reagan Revolution."
The dumber that dirt, partly demented McCain, and that pistol-packing bimbo he picked as his VP who once boasted that she got a "D" in Macroeconomics at Idaho State, will be sure to drive the country into the ground and probably get us involved in another pointless war. Obama will do the same, but will do so with a happy face speaking the usual Democratic pieties about the "middle class," "economic justice," blah, blah, blah, while the same looting, militarism, and assorted BS goes on.
I have always had mixed feelings about Nader, but no more. Obama's telecom immunity betrayal was initially a "deal breaker" for me, but I softened my opposition to Obama when I realized what a hopeless, unstable, unprincipled lunatic McCain is. Obama's mealy mouth response to this crisis and his usual political posturing has finally done it.
Nader 08. It does not matter if he loses, I am thru with voting for the lesser jackass.