Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGrowing Right-Wing Opposition to the Paulson Plan
On Saturday morning, I noted -- quoting Atrios -- the almost complete lack of debate over the ever-changing dictates issued by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Last week, whatever Paulson said on any given day -- no bailouts; only selected bailouts; massive $700 billion bailout plan -- immediately became the unchallenged conventional wisdom.
That has all changed. Prominent economists, who had previously been defending Paulson for the most part, began voicing serious doubts about his plan. As the AP put it yesterday: "Many of the same economists and opinion-makers who'd provided a bipartisan sheen of consensus to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's previous moves have quickly begun casting doubts on the wisdom of a policy that would allow Treasury to purchase without oversight hundreds of billions of dollars of difficult-to-price assets from financial institutions." Not only Paul Krugman, who was a skeptic from the start, but conservative economic experts have also now expressed opposition, including former Bush and Romney advisor Greg Mankiw and -- in an excellent column on Saturday -- Sebastian Mallaby, who described the rapid move to embrace Paulson's plan as "extremely dangerous."
And now, some of the most rabid ideologues on the Right are voicing increasingly strident opposition as well. At National Review last night, Newt Gingrich wrote that "watching Washington rush to throw taxpayer money at Wall Street has been sobering and a little frightening" and said he "hopes Congress will slow down and have an open debate." Thereafter, NR's Yuval Levin proclaimed that nobody could read through the Paulson proposal "without concluding that everyone in Washington has lost their minds." In The New York Times today, Bill Kristol said he's "doubtful that the only thing standing between us and a financial panic is for Congress to sign this week, on behalf of the American taxpayer, a $700 billion check over to the Treasury," while Michelle Malkin posted a lengthy alarmist screed warning that "Hank Paulson must be contained."
Right-wing opposition to the Paulson plan is vital for having any meaningful chance to stop it. Does anyone have any confidence at all in the Democrats' willingness and/or ability to impede this bailout train if the Bush administration and the Right were vigorously behind it, warning the nation of impending doom unless we submit to vast, unchecked government power of the type Henry Paulson is demanding? The instances of complete Democratic acquiescence under those circumstances -- including when they "controlled" the Congress -- are far too numerous to allow any rational person to think Democrats, standing alone, would stop the Paulson plan. As sad as it is, meaningful right-wing opposition is critical for that to happen.
More interesting are the reasons why these right-wing polemicists have decided they have real doubts about the wisdom of the Paulson plan. In opposing the plan, each of them cited -- with alarm -- the provision which vests full, unfettered and unreviewable discretion in the Treasury Secretary to determine how the $700,000,000,000 is allocated: Levin (plan gives "essentially unlimited power to use $700 billion to make purchases the scope of which is defined very loosely and vaguely"); Gingrich ("We are being reassured that we can trust Secretary Paulson 'because he knows what he is doing'. Congress had better ask a lot of questions before it shifts this much burden to the taxpayer and shifts this much power to a Washington bureaucracy"); Kristol ("There are no provisions for - or even promises of - disclosure, accountability or transparency"); Malkin (Washington is demanding we "fork over $700 billion to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and allow him to dole it out to whomever he chooses in whatever amount he chooses -- without public input or recourse").
Apparently, the same political faction that has cheered on every instance of unchecked, absolute executive power over the last eight years -- which demanded that the President, and he alone, decide which citizens, including Americans, can be spied on, detained, even tortured, and that no oversight or disclosure was needed for any of that -- has suddenly re-discovered their desire for checks on federal government power. The reason? They say it themselves: with the looming prospect of an Obama presidency, they may no longer be in charge of that Government and these "small government conservatives" have thus suddenly re-awoken to the virtues of checks and balances, oversight and other restraints.
In explaining his opposition to the Paulson plan, Levin warns:
Even if Hank Paulson were the all knowing god of economics, would it make sense to give this kind of power to the treasury secretary for the next two years just forty days before an election? Shall we go through our mental list of who an Obama administration (or a McCain administration for that matter) is likely to put in that post?Gingrich writes:
Imagine that the political balance of power in Washington were different.Malkin is actually worried about vesting such power in Paulson himself -- she thinks he's basically a tool of the Communist Chinese, a follower of "Gore-esque" eco-zealotry, and worst of all, someone with ties to some Democrats -- but the point is the same: people have long predicted that the Right will do a complete reversal (once again) in their positions on vast federal power and unlimited executive authority the minute that such power is vested in someone they oppose and fear rather than in themselves. The remarkable spectacle of watching these right-wing authoritarians suddenly demand Congressional oversight and voice opposition to unlimited executive power -- two months before a highly possible Obama victory -- is quite obviously reflective of that shift.If this were a Democratic administration the Republicans in the House and Senate would be demanding answers and would be organizing for a "no" vote . . . . But because this gigantic power shift to Washington and this avalanche of taxpayer money is being proposed by a Republican administration, the normal conservative voices have been silent or confused.
It's time to end the silence and clear up the confusion.
Rather hilariously, this was the very first comment from a Malkin reader after she sounded the alarm about the provision in the Paulson plan providing that his decisions are "non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency":
So something that is unconstitutional cannot be reviewed by a Federal court? I guess, not even the Supreme Court. Well, if it is accepted, a precedent has been set, which will allow other proposals/bills to go through, regardless of legality, being "non-reviewable" by Federal court. A government running amok . . . with people cheering.This person obviously has no idea that such provisions are hardly "unprecedented," but have been appearing in several of the most controversial bills of the last eight years (as but one example, The Military Commissions Act, a right-wing favorite, essentially purported to bar courts from reviewing the President's decisions about who to detain and further barred judicial review of the Congressional scheme, and similar "court-stripping provisions" have long been a right-wing favorite in all sorts of contexts). And more generally, this is how our Government has worked: the President demands unlimited power and Congress gives it to him. It's only because visions of a Muslim, terrorist-sympathizing, socialist President Obama are haunting them in their feverish nightmares is the Right suddenly deeply fearful once again of vesting vast power in the Federal Government and the Executive.
But no matter. The blatant hypocrisy here, while extreme, craven and obvious, is also healthy. Hypocrisy of this sort is actually a vital part of how checks and balances are supposed to work. It is expected that political factions, when in charge of the government, will seek to obtain greater power for themselves, and the check against that is that the "opposition party" will battle and resist -- not necessarily out of ideology or principle but due to raw power considerations and self-interest.
That is what has been so tragically missing from our political process for the last eight years: while the GOP sought greater and greater government power, Democrats acquiesced almost completely when they weren't complicitly enabling it. While the Executive was off the charts in terms of the power it seized, the Congress was off the charts in its passivity and eagerness to relinquish its Constitutionally assigned powers to the Bush White House. That's what has caused the extreme imbalance, with a bloated Republican Party and virtually unlimited presidential power: the failure of Democrats and the Congress to serve as a check on any of that. As their newfound contempt for unlimited power makes conclusively clear, the executive-power-worshipping Republicans of the last eight years -- if there is an Obama presidency -- will quickly re-discover their limited government power "principles" and won't be nearly as accommodating.
UPDATE: I should add that Congressional Democrats, while largely on board with the fundamentals of the bailout plan, have been making noises about demanding some limits and oversight on how this fund is managed, and the political climate is certainly part of what is motivating the Right to voice these doubts, as illustrated by the bizarre and deeply cynical spectacle of the GOP presidential nominee -- of all people -- joining with the Democrats to demand limits on CEO compensation. The point, though, is that Democrats typically make noises of this type and then capitulate at the end if they stand alone. This Paulson bill can be stopped only with widespread opposition that cuts across the standard ideological/partisan lines, and it shouldn't be that hard to argue why handing over $700 billion to the very people who caused this disaster, while allowing them to walk away soaked with profits, is not a good idea, and that vesting unlimited power in the Bush administration to manage that is a particularly bad idea. If Democrats can't win that argument, what argument can they win?
UPDATE II: A Rasmussen Reports poll released today found that "most Americans are closely following news reports on the Bush Administration's federal bailout plan for the country's troubled economy, but just 28% support what has been proposed so far." Thirty-seven percent oppose it and 35% are unsure. As El Zongo notes in comments, this bailout -- like the FISA gutting and telecom amnesty which preceded it -- has no real constituency beyond the Washington establishment. That the public is so opposed and/or primed to oppose it more doesn't mean this won't pass -- we don't exactly have a substantial connection between what Washington does and public opinion -- but it does provide an important foundation for derailing this if political leaders decide they should or must.
75 Comments so far
Show AllThe bailout's proponents are saying rush, rush, rush to get it done. Don't think. Do what we say and do it now. This is highly suspicious.
Food for thought in the article:
Wall Street’s special offer – but you must act now!
PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America
Sept. 24, 2008
http://www.populistamerica.com/wall_streets_special_offer_but_you_must_act_now
Sioux Rose
COYOTE BREATH: Good insight. I, too, see the S & L scam as the training ground for this one, added to the Enron manipulation of CAlifornia energy rates; heck, even the voter recall in Cal or the way the Republicans got redistricting in Texas... it's fraud upon fraud upon fraud, until one becomes quite good at it. And as the public gives each one a relative free pass, the heists become indistinguishable from "business as usual." Once the $700 billion disappears, like so many billions, trillions (?) in the Iraqi war/debacle, then will the "powers" declare a national emergency, the piggy bank empty, and begin to help themselves more DIRECTLY to our personal assets? Why would they not? They've been following the Nazi playbook all along... straight from the Reischtang (spelling?) fire that set that society into gear for a "fight against terrorism" of the nearest sort, frequently defined by and through the most convenient scapegoat population, the ones that look or behave or believe differently. It is SICKENING to see the same replay of history, but when people look backwards to traditions that have led to these outcomes, they fail to evolve and thus stuck on the same treadmill, events tend to recur. Tragic.
quickstepper September 22nd, 2008 3:52 pm
I love it when someone imparts a position to me I don't hold or calls people trolls because they don't agree with the party line.
Just remember, posts like that just show who you really are. I must agree with richm's appraisal of your thinking.
I suspect people all over the world are already making fun of us. Maybe they are asking how many Americans does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Alan MacDonald
Glenn, of course the principled right-wing wants to protect the freedom, liberty and democracy --- but they're been effected by the financial Empire's scare term "socialism" --- which is a false threat.
The real opportunity here is to expand (small d) democracy.
What we're facing is a far bigger battle than the fleecing of this supposed 'bailout'.
What we are facing is the final showdown between the economic empire of ruling-elite financial royalists against the very concept of America's most innovative contribution to the world: democracy --- vs. the chance, with our courage, to finally complete the American Revolution against the rule of empire in all aspects of our lives and liberty.
Today we have the opportunity of finally achieving the successful completion of the American Revolution; where the triumph of real democracy, rather than empire, in how men govern themselves, addresses the inexorably combined power of our indivisible political economy.
The good news of this epic crisis is that the real American innovation of democracy will finally (after 232 years) be applied to both the realms of political and economic self-governance, rather than only to the political sphere --- because empire, left alone in the economic sphere, has been perverting and trying to overthrow democracy since 1776.
This is not a choice between 'free market democracy' (which is only a PR lie told by the 'corporatist Empire') and the scare term of 'socialism' --- but rather the long-delayed, final battle of the American Revolution, between democratic self-governance in the unified political economy of our country, or an economic empire of their corporatist/fascist elite metastasizing from the economic realm to the political realm and the whole of our society.
LeeAnnG
Funny - I just happened to catch Jim DeMint, Republican senator from South Carolina on CNN this morning. He was an obvious moron who blames the current problem on "greed caused by government interference with the natural flow of the market, guaranteed student loans, government forced loans to people who can't afford them, and excessive regulations" (paraphrased) and thinks the government needs to do nothing at all and let the market take care of itself.
The really weird part was that he was against the bailout. He had no clear alternatives, and he didn't think his opposition would stop it, but he was definitely adamant in his belief that the market could fix itself if the government just stepped aside. He wants absolute control of the entire economic world to go to corporations and businesses, and says that would somehow eliminate the greed factor! But it is true that some rightwingnuts are against the bailout.
Bizarre. I was appalled by the batshit loopy notions he was proposing in virtually every way except for my agreement with him about throwing money at this problem. Oh. And my belief that he was likely to be right that it can't be stopped. Too bad, because it does amount to taxation without representation (as was noted in a similar post to another article here on DC).
McCain is a wasted old man well past his prime. He is a cipher and a crony of the system of deregulation that helped bring this mess on. He's been implicated in the Keating Five. He can manage to turn a computer on if the "on" button is boldly displayed but can't seem to figure out how to open up a browser to get on the internet. He is a bad tempered hothead. He picked an attack dog Pug running mate that eats raw meet with her hands, skins mooses for fun and is being investigated in Alaska. Her husband is currently defying a subpoena. They head a completely discredited party of greed, war and corruption that has been a complete disaster. The Republican Party has been rocked by scandal after scandal. We've seen our civil rights curtailed and $4.00 gas. How lousy a candidate can you get?
Democrats are heading toward a landslide right? Well, Obama is barely 2% ahead in the polls, within the margin of error, that's gotta tell you something.
You're right. It tells me that fear and racism are ingrained in the centrist swing-voters. It tells me the media is slanted toward the old warmonger----maverick; reformer; blah,blah blah.
"That the public is so opposed and/or primed to oppose it more doesn't mean this won't pass -- we don't exactly have a substantial connection between what Washington does and public opinion -- but it does provide an important foundation for derailing this if political leaders decide they should or must."
I am not sure of Greenwald's intent here. All of a sudden public opposition becomes "an important foundation" for a Congress that has a more narcissistic, self-serving mentality than a comparable size group of 3 year olds. Or is it the senility of a plush life rotting the neural connections? Or has Mr. Greenwald set the foundation in his mind as 'hope' when its more and more obvious this is another example of "So?"
By the way, just what did happen to debate on an issue of this import with Congress using its power to supoenae, interrogate, not interview, culpable parties and documents. Especially, given the power of Congress to 'coin money' by the Congress, how does Paulson present such hubris when these financial houses have no leverage.
It is more than disgusting. It is criminal, ad nauseum.
In the end, there will be bipartisan support for the plan. Only we will have "oversight". right.
Since the first bail out with the TLF's amd Bear Stearns, the total will be up to 1.8 trillion. Reuters has a nice chart breaking it down.
And remember the bipartisan deal that repealed Glass Steagall that made this possible in 1999, signed by Clinton. Not to mention the Monetary Control Act of 1980 under Carter/Volcker that allowed the Fed to monetize 3rd world debt and gave us the S&L crisis, another huge bailout.
Those double digit interest rates are coming back now. This ensures it. Good luck if you have an ARM or want to buy a house, or have credit card debt.
The dollar as the reserve currency is now toast. Obama supports the bailout, provided there is oversight.
And now Goldman Sachs, Paulsons old company, gets to join the Federal Reserve System and can profit by making money instead of just investing it. Hoo boy.
Glenn Greenwald ROCKS!
Does anyone have any confidence at all in the Democrats' willingness and/or ability to impede this bailout train if the Bush administration and the Right were vigorously behind it...
-ah...nope
The instances of complete Democratic acquiescence under those circumstances -- including when they "controlled" the Congress -- are far too numerous to allow any rational person to think Democrats...
-when I say stuff like that reboot calls me a "troll"
unfettered and unreviewable discretion in the Treasury Secretary to determine how the $700,000,000,000 is allocated
-imagine a "welfare queen" pulling up to the welfare office in her Cadillac Coupe with a sixpack of beer under her arm and demanding the welfare clerk cut her another check because she spent it all in Vegas? What would a "fiscally responsible" conservative Republican say? Well this is the equivalent.
If this were a Democratic administration the Republicans in the House and Senate would be demanding answers and would be organizing for a "no" vote . . .
-oh there's a good one! Pugs to the rescue! That is how low the Dims have sunk.
she thinks he's basically a tool of the Communist Chinese,
-really? I am supposed to be a Republican "troll" hired by the RNC!
Democrats acquiesced almost completely when they weren't complicitly enabling it.
-again I got called a "Rove Ass" for saying that!
have been making noises about demanding some limits...
-this is for DPA and sap consumption so they can claim, "SEE NOT ALL DEMS ARE BAD!!!" although "noises" have as much a chance of becoming policy as Kucinich's impeachment "noises".
has no real constituency beyond the Washington establishment.
-maybe not I'll bet you $100 at least half a dozen DPAs on CD will come to its defense eventually. Give them a week.
When the two financial masters of the government stand in front congress and say: "we must act to save the entire system", you can be assured that a bill WILL get through. We can bitch and moan about the spineless democrats and the duopoly and DPA's---(and by all means Ric if you believe that's helpful, go for it), or we can make an effort to alter the bailout into a more equitable bill. I'll be making a lot of phone calls, and threats to the democrats who want my vote in the next few days. Honestly I don't know what else to do, but if you have any suggestions that might make a difference to this "bailout" I'd like to hear them.
I think your right madcow. I will call the deaf ears of Diane Feinstein, Boxer and Laura Richardson. I agree, I need to do more than just gripe. Then if they go through with it at least I can say I tried. Good call. Then I can gripe. Cool?
Cool. I wish we could do something else!
NOTHING this administration says should be taken at face value. They have cried before of imminent danger, of Cities being bombed by terrorists, of suitcase nukes, of UAVS pouring biological weapons on US Cities.
They have pushed to have warrantless wiretaps....they speak Of Iran as if it a country that can topple America.
9/11 is suspect, the Patriot written up before that day even occurred. The official story behing the Anthrax attacks are a farce.
Now they claim the immiment collapse of the US economy without an immediate bailout of what will become trillions of dollars.
How can they be believed?
pk
We need to pay close attention to this bailout plan. The same way that the S&L scam of 17 years ago paved the way for this one, this one will pave the way for the bailout we can expect a few years after they get their hands on our Social Security funds.
Just imagine what these theives will do with our Social Security when they get their hands on it.
They already have their hands on it. They created deficits out of it and are now continuing to drown it out via wars for oil in Iraq and "bailing" out Wall $treet.
Why not buy equity in those firms so intertwined with our economy as to warrant saving? Let them keep their worthless paper....
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
From the blog by Larisa Alexandrovna
"The Treasury Secretary can buy broadly defined assets, on any terms he wants, he can hire anyone he wants to do it and can appoint private sector companies as financial deputies of the US government. And he can write whatever regulation he thinks are needed.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Write, call, fax, email all appropriate people in congress to make sure these provisions are stripped out.
... and these videos are worth a few minutes consideration
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2008/09/20.html
In the end, the right wing chimp squad is going to propose FDR style "public works" projects to pull the country out of its second gilded depression. The sheeple will thank almighty god for the "public works" when in fact they will be carefully designed to privatize what is left of public enterprise ownership. The ownership of the production and the assets will be further consolidated in private hands. Instead of cleaning up the train wreck, the chimp squad is going to churn the pile and fuel the fire.
And then there is the bill for Repairs and Reparations to:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Pakistan
Colombia
Iran
Korea
.
.
.
The pollsters are not framing the questions correctly. Instead of asking whether taxpayers "approve" of the current bail-out plan (before the details have even been revealed,) they should be asking:
1. The Fed wants each taxpayer to give approximately $8,000 to AIG in exchange for "toxic assets" which are so "complicated" even the Fed does not understand what it is "buying" with your $8,000. Do you approve or disapprove?
2. The Fed has already given other Wall Street thieves/failures over $16,000 from each and every taxpayer this year. Did you approve or disapprove? With the latest Fed "plan," each taxpayer will be on the hook for around $25,000 this year alone, not including interest, while no one responsible for the present dire economic situation will be prosecuted, none will be forced to return the money they stole, and many who stole your money will now be the "experts" tasked to "fix" the problem they deliberately created. Do you approve or disapprove?
3. The average taxpayer earns $32,000/year. The medium tax rate is 25%, which equals $7,000 on $32K, for a sub-total of $25,000/year. This year, so far, the Fed has spent/promised over $3 TRILLION to Wall Street thieves, which breaks down to $24,000 PER TAXPAYER, leaving the average taxpayer with a net income of $1,000 this year. Do you approve or disapprove?
And who is this 28% of Americans who "approve" giving the Fed $25,000 of their money to Wall Street thieves in exchange for "toxic assets" and whatever else they decide to "buy" without asking, or revealing what was bought?
Hey, I just ran across this article on Huff-Post regarding the absolute non-negotiable, non-reviewable authority of the bail-out proposal.... The section 8 clause. I hope that my US reps have enough guts to review and amend the proposal before passing it into law....
Section 8 of proposal:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Also, we got into this mess by trading in debt, It's like expecting debt to generate money.... People have debt precisely because they have no money... It's as abstract as trying to sell the hole of a bagel.... and then trying to figure out the ways to package that hole so that it looks like a bagel instead of a hole and then dividing the hole by an abstract number to arrive at the derivitive for a bagel hole, and then selling a portion of the repackaged holes to bankers who obviously don't know the difference between a bagle and a hole.
Kinda reminds me of the day when we used to step on the horse and sell the s*#t. Makes me wonder if investment bankers aren't just another kind of drug dealer.... I mean all of the tons of coke being smuggled are backed by somebody's big money...
Huff-Post? How can you trust HuffPost. HuffPost supports Obama.
That would definitely explain the very desperately hasty action being demanded by the White House. I don't think the public will even bother to find out.
I think the people who one might hope would review this bill are opting for blind obedience to king George whom they swore in as absolute dictator after Sept. 11, 2001.
This will all go through as the king decrees. Tyranny, is on the rise.
Once all these dictatorial ordinances are in place nothing short of outright secession of the States from such a totally corrupted federal government will stop them.
The problem is that the king, if he acted alone, would be easily deposed. It is the false opposition we have the most to worry about. The place where people bang their heads: the Democratic Party. I have no doubt that a Naderian Party would offer up genuine opposition. But the Dems will pull their usual ploy, try to frame the bailout in terms of how it's good for the average person. Their usual crock of shit.
.."has no real constituency beyond the Washington establishment. That the public is so opposed and/or primed to oppose it more doesn't mean this won't pass -- we don't exactly have a substantial connection between what Washington does and public opinion -- but it does provide an important foundation for derailing this if political leaders decide they should or must."
Yes especially State leaders. The union can and will break up if this goes on, the legal ground work to justify such action and demand it is being laid down.
Just as we declared our independence from the British Crown when our interests as Americans were no longer served because the king was busy with world domination and wanted to squeeze ever last dime from us to fight his wars.
History is swinging right around in a nice big circle folks.
Another possibility is that since other foreign nations own the debt we owe to them, they might very well be getting ready to fight for who will takeover and which portions of the country. I could be wrong though. Who knows?
....talk about a gulp moment, well that was a nice kick in the head, but yeah you are right, at this point we are probably in it so deep that the world is our new master.
NO BAILOUT, NO BONAS FOR JOBS DEFINITELY NOT WELL DONE; NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES, NO AMNESTY FOR FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT, MISREPRESENTATION, OUTRIGHT THEFT AND UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
Make them give back the last two years' bonas. The only bailout should be of the individuals who are about to loose their homes or whose retirement and investment accounts are at risk. Shameful conduct. Reregulation of the investment aspect of banking is the only way to prevent this from happening again as we have definite proof of their uncontrollable greed without rules.
If the government bails these companies out-then they also need to hire an all new staff. What is and has been going on is incompetence.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1
"Prominent economists"
You can see that when the going gets tough, even Glenn Greenwald lurches into the extreme right capitalist gutter. When the going gets tough, the ranks of the REAL progressives get very sparse indeed. Greenwald's "prominent economists" are decrepit mutant gargoyle-vultures. Why can't Greenwald call a spade a spade when the going gets tough? Why is Greenwald indicating with his constructs that he values the rancid right? Why is he not demonstrating a belief in the promise of the left, proven by the performance of the social democracies? Greenwald secretly believes Thatcher's "there are no alternatives!" REAL progressives know better.
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 95% of 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.
"Throw them overboard" Who, Obama and McCain? Because isn't the criminal tax we are expected to pay attached to endorsing one these two?
There is no candidate running who is qualified to lead this country. We have a marginalizing electoral system which excludes those of real qualification and replaces them with those who do not serve the public's interest. Money buys complience.
The entire Congress, Executive and Judicial is corrupted by their corporatist puppeteers.
I don't endorse either fleecer from "The Party".
Vote Obama! Get an opposition party back in Congress! Save the checks and balances.
BWAHahaha! Are you kidding? The Democrats are an "opposition party"? Please tell us exactly what they have "opposed" (or even seriously TRIED to oppose) in the last 8 years.
Do you think the Democrats have fought to preserve "the checks and balances"? A very intriguing hypothesis. Please give us some idea how you arrived at this remarkable conclusion.
You guys (you and toast) are so wrapped in your hate you can't see humor or irony when it stares you right in the face.
The "opposition party" I was referring to would be the republican party---which would oppose Obama so fervently when he gets in. Just like the article says the righties are opposing the bailout now because they're worried he'll get in.
Get it?
It was also a veiled slap at the non-opposing democrats....
Only a total mindless tool would ever believe what you describe as a solution. It's quite obvious that you actually believe the drivel you write. That your ability to only derive shallow analysis of perhaps one of the most critical problems in our history is so evident by your "solution".
Palin-Cheney are part and parcel to the problem. If you believe they "oppose" what is being offered as a solution, make your case. Otherwise, I would point to the fact that they are offering no more of a demand for real solutions than any other in Congress... which is no demand at all.
In fact, they are paying off their corporate donors.
All are complicit. Palin-McCain are two of the guilty. They are NOT a solution... They *are* the problem.
See how that works you nitwit?
"Obama is part and parcel to the problem. If you believe he "opposes" what is being offered as a solution, make your case."
"See how that works you nitwit?"
I see how it works. It went over your head and you can't admit it. If only we could go back and erase all our foolishness...
To get back to your post which "went over" everyone's heads:
-"Vote Obama! Get an opposition party back in Congress! Save the checks and balances."
Umm... you really can't see how this could be read as saying the Democrats are the "opposition party" you are for?
You don't mention the Republicans, do you?
But, that is neither here nor there. Now that you have clarified, I'd ask you to clarify further. Do you mean to say that you advocate electing Obama to the Executive but returning the Republicans to a majority in Congress?
Is this a joke? Some things don't translate very well to this kinda short form writing.
The reason I ask is that this "partisan" conceptualization of how "checks and balances" are intended to work is actually fairly common in the U.S. and is quite destructive to our understanding.
Also, "hate" is a pretty strong word. I think many progressivly minded Citizens are quite ANGRY at the Dems for their failures, but to constantly characterize this anger as "hate" seems like the weaving of a Strawman for the manipulation of PC leftits.
No big deal, as those who you seem to often get into it with go too far with the ad hominum attacks as well.
Have Fun,
-matti.
Yes matti it was meant to be ironic. If Obama is the executive, the republicans in congress will be a vocal opposition whether or not they have the majority (which I'm not advocating for). It's more than we have now with the spineless democrats who don't oppose much at all.
I see now that it could easily be taken another way. But I think the response was telling.
hatred n. intense dislike or ill will
My problem with these "supposed" progressives is that they usually just sputter their hatred for the democratic party and have no realistic or positive suggestion other than destroy the system and anyone they think is a "DPA", or vote for a third-party/independent candidate who can't get in.
I see plenty in the system, the democrats and mostly the republicans, to be critical of.
Take the "bailout" controversy. It would seem like a perfect opportunity to highlight what a complete failure the Milton Friedman unregulated free-market philosophy, adopted by the republicans, is. But all these haters can do is focus on the democrats; or they call anyone who sees a difference between the democratic philosophy of strong government regulation a
Democratic Party Apologist---DPA, a "mindless tool" or a Lesserevilist, like we're somehow into evil. They actually make-up their own names for us! I find the whole thing insulting, simplistic, and counter-productive---not to mention hateful.
Only a total mindless tool would ever believe what you describe as a solution. It's quite obvious that you actually believe the drivel you write. That your ability to only derive shallow analysis of perhaps one of the most critical problems in our history is so evident by your "solution".
Obama is part and parcel to the problem. If you believe he "opposes" what is being offered as a solution, make your case. Otherwise, I would point to the fact that he is offering no more of a demand for real solutions than any other in Congress... which is no demand at all.
In fact, he is paying off his corporate donors.
All are complicit. Obama is one of the guilty. He is NOT a solution... he *is* the problem.
"total mindless tool"? I don't know toast---I think it went right over your head...
Irony is hard to portray on line, for reasons unknown to me. I fail to understand why some folks lash out prior to engaging their brains, remembering your history of posting and shutting up prior to making fools of themselves.
"The progress of rivers to the sea is not so rapid as that of man to error." Voltaire
edit....I see you confessed below, how ironic.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
This one kind of goes over MY head. Did you think I was lashing out without thinking? And notice later I was being ironical?
That's irony on top of irony---which gets circular and freaks me out...
As he continues to stay mute......silence is complicity.
The military industrial media complex is laughing all the way to the bank as the US electorate falls for another example of the shock doctrine...create a crisis that only the neocons can solve at great expense to the US Treasury.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. The US electorate is way past twice in being fooled and still has no clue.
The Right is now desperate and wants to hang on to power at any cost. They are thinking of 1930-1932 when Hoobert Heaver fundamentally did nothing about the Great Depression except blow smoke up citizens' asses and sing "Prosperity Is Just Around The Corner". A crash now, like the Great Depression, with 25% unemployment, will unleash untold and unforseen forces on this country which the Right suspects it will be completely unable to control and will prove to be catastrophic. It may very well result in a prolonged and gargantuan version of the urban riots of the 1960's with those who have been screwed every which way from Sunday and have nothing to lose out in the streets with guns, Big Guns, shooting it out with the police, the National Guard and ultimately, the Army and Marines. At that point, the United States will fit John Nance Garner's description of the office of the vice president; it won't be worth a bucket of warm piss. The Right's only god is money. Money. Money. Money. That has to keep flowing and requires order to be maintained in the circus. Why else would trolls like Malkin, Gingrich and Kristol, who crawl out every day from under their wet rocks, go public and tell Henry Paulson where to head in?
i think the actual quote was "a bucket of warm spit".
And the crash is not stoppable now. Too much imaginary money floating around, all tied up in too many things. The empty mortgage loans tied into the derivatives market tied into the US debt and the value of the dollar.
The balloon has popped, and no trillion-dollar "bailout" can put the latex back together.
The ride will be unpredictable in its particulars and specifics at any moment, but the trajectory is pretty clear, and the landing will not end up being "soft" for anyone.
No, the "conservatives" know how to deceive the public into not noticing it. Back in the 1930s, they didn't frame their ideology the way they do know. The rightwing lunatics know what they're doing and they have an even more powerful media in their favor and wars for oil still going on to keep things the way they are.
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.
Sioux Rose
I don't care if the "conservatives" now act to conserve resources, so long as someone puts some checks into the UNBALANCED claim to absolute powers that has driven our nation to fiscal, moral, and spiritual bankruptcy! Whatever the agency of deliverance, bring it on!
Fascinating that the only checks on the system come from the right these days.
For instance, on another dot to connnect to this one, remember that the only real opposition to an attack on Iran has come from within the intelligence community and the pentagon.
Now we see that the only real opposition to the federal government giving hundreds of billions away to wall street comes from the far right.
There is so much bull about 'conservatives' on these blogs these days, that people forget that there always was a group within the Republican party that did oppose issues like this on strong philosophical grounds. In other words, they actually have principles that they stand for and at least sometimes stand up and fight for them.
We haven't seen anything like that in the Democrats for so long (with a couple of notable exceptions like Feingold on the Patriot Act and Kucinich on impeachment), that we've probably all forgotten what this looks like.
Thank god there's someone standing up against this. They want to giveaway hundreds of billions of OUR money. Someone should be saying no!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Most of the Edmund Burke conservatives of the Republican Party were routed a long time ago. What was left were "Conservatives" who fed at the trough of government largess, enriching their campaign contributors and cronies while denying any programs or services to the public at large because that would cause "moral hazard" to society. I guess the definition of "moral hazard" depends on whether you aid the Patrician class or the Plebeians.
Yeah and as Obama stands silent and complicit and an overwhelming majority of democrats do nothing yet again as another Federal American stronghold falls to absolute despotism, the idea that the Democrats party has some sort of domestic terrorist element to it, grows by the day. We should not rule out anything.
Sorry Samson but comments like that are the height of hipocracy. Don’t go patting yourself on the back yet.. you right wingers have driven this train off the cliff in 8 short years. Every single major policy put forth by the BushCo. & Conspirators Administration has been a absolute disaster. I’ll spare you list and embarresment- we’ve all know the laundry list of dirty tricks and deceit that is the republican resume. Comments like yours strike me as desperate attempts at damage control…. from a spin machine that begins and ends deep within a right wing philosophical black hole. You don’t by any chance work for them do you? Spin doctors are in high demand these days… how’s your retirement package holding up buddy?
Samson is not a "rightwinger," you nitwit. He's well to the left of YOU, and to the left of the Dem Party in general.
Only Dem Party Loyalists are so politically immature, that they can't even distinguish between a rightwinger & someone to their own left. When Democrats arrive in a forum, the average IQ plummets.
Rich; not Rightwinger, no such word. Right winger is what you are looking for.
Kind of funny, you saying how dumb Democrats are and you have trouble spelling.
Everything IS relative though.
For example; The two parties. In a world absent of absolutes, especially attainable ones, The Dem's are saints compared to The Party that Wrecked America.
Again, that's right wing, Rich.
Who cares, except you DO make such a point about IQ's. (Might wanna leave that one alone!)
This kind of post is rather annoying.
What does this serve exactly?
We can do better.
Hi matti, I was just admiring a post of your above here on this thread, it seemed calm and right on.
I scroll down and see this post, also calm and right on.
I humbly submit that I've read and posted on CD for years, no sweat except re Israel where passions rise but in recent months have become a distinct minority in my opinion that Obama is our best hope and tensions seem to have risen here also.
matti, I've been bummed by what I percieve as this; If you are for Obama on CD, are going to vote Dem, you are Stupid, not wrong, but Dumb. This is articulated in the post I responded to in one of a thousand variations on the theme I've seen on CD.
I plead guilty to responding in kind here.
Please post much!
"Samson is not a 'rightwinger,' you nitwit. He's well to the left of YOU, and to the left of the Dem Party in general."
Samson is just another of Rove's trolls posing as a left-wing purist to urge the defeat of Obama.
As are RichM and Thomas more. Among Others.
q
Cool! I wanna be on your Enemies List!
I too am here merely to urge the defeat of Obama!
I believe Samson was only pointing out that the conservatives of the right have opposed Bush and these guys all along and that those conservatives are not Neocons or Bush and Co.
All Republicans are not conservatives, all conservatives are not republicans and those conservatives are closer to liberals than neocons. You simply misunderstood what he was trying to say I believe.
"I believe Samson was only pointing out that the conservatives of the right have opposed Bush and these guys all along and that those conservatives are not Neocons or Bush and Co."
Uh, I don't think so unless you can name me one Republican other than Ron Paul who has opposed Bush and isn't a neocon.
"All Republicans are not conservatives, all conservatives are not republicans and those conservatives are closer to liberals than neocons. You simply misunderstood what he was trying to say I believe."
That's true. However, the Republicans just rubberstamp and walk in lock step with their party leadership. That doesn't sound independent to me.
True. However, do you really think they'll be the same once the election is over? The only reason the "right" is finally standing up to Wall $treet is it is close to election day and they have to pretend to throw these poor slobs a bone. As for Iran, true but don't forget the rising costs of oil also played a role. Never trust the Far Right on ANYTHING. They'll pretend to do and then flip back out when no one's looking.
Watched this bill being brought up in the House this morning on C-SPAN, and really liked what Rep Perter Defasio, D-OR said about it. He likened the rush to push the bill, as written by Paulson, through, to the rush to give Bush unlimited powers after 9/11. And we've all learned from that haste. There were also a couple of Republican Reps voicing the same need for caution.
Is this forced "bail out" the waste that the original haste created?
Hey Peter Defraudrio, as we like to call him is my representative. I had fun shouting him down at a town hall meeting last year. He is an angry bossy little man who seems to worship victimology.
But maybe he is stepping up and doing his job finally. He's probably afraid I'll come to the next town hall meeting and harangue him if he doesn't heh.
So, we need the right-wingers to save us from the Democrats?
Oh, the irony!
When I finished the article, I was going to say exactly what you did. You beat me to it! :)
Hey Rich M, how does it feel? I am going to have to reread all your wonderful posts because you really had me fooled. I had no idea you were a Rove troll. It really doesn't seem like it from what I have read. I see you as rather intelligent and aware of the trickery both parties engage in. I guess I must be an idiot................lizard
RichM is more of a true progressive/liberal. Unfortunately, this country is stuck with more DYSFUNCTIONALLY partisan voters who do not take their parties seriously. Of those who do vote, 30-40% are already going to vote Republican while 30-40% will vote Democrat. The rest just so happens to be up in the air. The same idiots who accuse RichM of being a troll never attack the real trolls who spew their GOP partisan rightwing bullshit. But hey, that's the same as the Democrats who make excuses for not standing up to the GOP but who go out of their ways to force Progressive/Independent candidates OFF the ballot and even debates via frivolous lawsuits and media drownouts. It doesn't matter if Mccain or Obama gets in and Wall $treet knows it damn well or they wouldn't be falling apart in the middle of an election season but would wait until January and after.
RichM's posts reek of Rovian spin and damage control.