Too Big to Fail and Too Small to Matter
These times provide a crash course on the corporate state:
If a company like AIG is too big to fail, the government will rescue it. Mere people -- too small to matter -- are expendable.
The insurance industry is too big to fail. A person's health is too small to matter, so -- when it fails due to the absence or loopholes of insurance coverage -- that's tough luck.
The Defense Department is too big to fail. The people it's killing in Iraq and Afghanistan are too small to matter.
The U.S. nuclear arsenal is too big to fail. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, undermined by Washington, is too small to matter.
Overall, the warfare state is too big to fail. The virtues of peace are too small to matter.
Agribusiness is too big to fail. Family farmers are too dirt-small to matter.
The leverage for the U.S. Treasury to subsidize Wall Street is too big to fail. The leverage to subsidize mothers and children kicked off welfare is too small to matter.
The political momentum for bailing out corporate America is too big to fail. The political momentum for funding adequate payment rates from Medicaid to reimburse healthcare providers is too small to matter.
The oil conglomerates are too big to fail. Global warming is too small to matter.
The prison industry is too big to fail. The need for preschool is too small to matter.
Corporate power is too big to fail. The ordeals of working people and want-to-be-working people are too small to matter.
Human worth as maximized by dollars: too big to fail. Human worth as affirmed by humanistic values: too small to matter.
The current odds of pumping at least several hundred billion taxpayer dollars into corporate America: too big to fail. The current odds of launching a massive federal jobs program: too small to matter.
Such priorities and mindsets are in overdrive at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street. But a basic shift in government priorities is possible. That's what happened three-quarters of a century ago, when a progressive upsurge prevented the re-election of President Herbert Hoover -- and then effectively mobilized to pressure the new occupant of the White House.
After campaigning in 1932 on a middle-of-the-road Democratic platform, Franklin Roosevelt went on to become a president who denounced the "economic royalists" and made common cause with working people and the unemployed. People across the country organized for social change. In the process, you might say, the power of progressive movements became too big to fail.
Something like that could happen again.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
83 Comments so far
Show AllWholesale peael jewellery at http://www.topearl.co.uk
[url=http://www.topearl.co.uk]pearl jewellery[/url] [url=http://www.topearl.co.uk]Wholesale jewelry[/url] [url=http://www.topearl.co.uk/jadeite-jade-jewelry-uk-21]jade jewelry[/url] [url=http://www.topearl.co.uk/pandora-jewelry-uk-92/]pandora jewelry[/url] [url=http://www.topearl.co.uk/bridal-bridesmaid-jewelry-uk-136/]bridal jewelry[/url] [url=http://www.topearl.co.uk/gemstone-jewelry-uk-105/]Gemstone jewelry[/url] [url=http://www.topearl.co.uk/freshwater-pearl-necklaces-uk-1/]freshwater pearls[/url] [url=http://www.topearl.co.uk]cultured pearls[/url] [url=http://www.toperlen.de]perlenschmuk[/url] [url=http://www.toperles.fr]Bijoux en perles[/url] [url=http://www.towholesalejewelry.com]wholesale jewelry[/url] [url=http://www.jewelrypearl.ca]pearl jewelry[/url] [url=http://www.pearl-jewelry.com.au]pearl jewelry[/url] [url=http://www.pearlsjewelry.co.uk]pearl jewellery[/url]
As a matter of principle, I can understand wanting to vote for Nader instead one of the two surely to win.
BUT - what Ralph help get us last time - a dolt for a President and a pond scum for VP. Look around and see what a pile of crap our Nation is in
Nader is not a bad man (despite the fact he claimed to be an expert on cars years before he knew how to drive one)
but to insert himself yet again into an election which might give us a Red,White & Blue Hero that wants a truly stupid war to go on forever and a Jesus Freak woman, is flat out stupid. If the GOP wins this time, we are truly screwed even more so than before.
Let him spend his time and funds supporting the Congress otherwise he is an egotistical idiot.
As a matter of principle, I can understand wanting to vote for Nader instead one of the two surely to win.
BUT - what Ralph help get us last time - a dolt for a President and a pond scum for VP. Look around and see what a pile of crap our Nation is in
Nader is not a bad man (despite the fact he claimed to be an expert on cars years before he knew how to drive one)
but to insert himself yet again into an election which might give us a Red,White & Blue Hero that wants a truly stupid war to go on forever and a Jesus Freak woman, is flat out stupid. If the GOP wins this time, we are truly screwed even more so than before.
Let him spend his time and funds supporting the Congress otherwise he is an egotistical idiot.
As a matter of principle, I can understand wanting to vote for Nader instead one of the two surely to win.
BUT - what Ralph help get us last time - a dolt for a President and a pond scum for VP. Look around and see what a pile of crap our Nation is in
Nader is not a bad man (despite the fact he claimed to be an expert on cars years before he knew how to drive one)
but to insert himself yet again into an election which might give us a Red,White & Blue Hero that wants a truly stupid war to go on forever and a Jesus Freak woman, is flat out stupid. If the GOP wins this time, we are truly screwed even more so than before.
Let him spend his time and funds supporting the Congress otherwise he is an egotistical idiot.
There are no "errors" on the part of Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulsen, or any of these criminals. This is part and parcel of the NEW WORLD ORDER agenda, to pick the bones clean as the military gets ready to start patrolling the streets in October. False Flag incidents (in addition to the Economic 911) are sure to be part of the scenario to bring on Martial Law. Oh well, October is almost here, and I really do have to make up my mind about whom to vote for.
ARMY TIMES website September 8, 2008/or article by Paul Joseph Watson, INFOWARS, Sept. 24, 2008
Obama, too big to fail.
McCain, too big to matter.
I hope the election will bring change but they are just politicians in the end.
http://www.boppoll.com
Hank Fur September 23rd, 2008 7:05 pm
"What is it about Obama that makes Democrats so willing to minimalize his ominous choices for advisors, his bad votes, military agenda, etc.? oops, how could I forget. The scary Republicans! If I were an empire and had my very own duopoly, I'd design things exactly the same way. It's a win-win!"
You make a nice argument Hank---in fact, I'm blown away by ALL the well reasoned arguments here that make the case that the democrats have NOT earned the progressive vote.
I agree---they have not.
This country is tilting to the right and good progressives with their messy discord are getting left behind. Now, even CommonDreams has to hide these comments from readers who are embarrassed by the vitriol and the increasingly strident debate that boils down to: Stick with the broken system and try to change it; or dump the sellouts and go another way.
It's sad because in the end we're all in this together, and I believe we all want the same thing. You'd think progressives, democrats, and centrists would have the sense to circle the wagons. We're up against a corrupt media, the military-Industrial-financial complex, and the rise of fascism.
And you so blithely dismiss the threat of "those scary republicans". Like it's just another face of an empire that deserves to die---which it is. But this particular face is a face we've never seen here. Our empire has never gone down the road of fascism, and many of us see the corporate right-wing authoritarian ascendency as just that. And for my part, I choose to "minimalize his ominous choices", and vote for Obama for that reason. I think he's the best chance we have of tilting our empire back from the brink.
I don't pretend to know why the democrats have been such a miserable failure at opposing this---I don't think any of us has the whole story. Is it pure avarice or cowardice? Is it love of power or fear of making things even worse? What if Bush/Cheney holds some threat over the leadership; like: we sent the anthrax to Senators Daschle and Leahey, and we'll send more if you impeach. Or we'll suspend the constitution entirely on some false-flag operation if you get in our way. I put NOTHING past these criminals.
Some things are easier to understand. Like the closing of the debates by the two parties. Why would you open them when it would only peal off votes from your total? Power corrupts, and this is plainly corrupt. We need to push for non-partisan control of debates...
Anyway, keep fighting. I respect your right to vote for Nader, he's a good man.
Thanks truthbetold, I read a few pages from the site and they all were in favor of opening up the debates.
Thoughts_Into_Action September 23rd, 2008 8:57 pm nailed it.
I read a sizable chunk of "War Made Easy" and always had this weird feeling that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Now I know what it was: Solomon's necessary--and deserved--vilification of the Repugs and his inability to see the Dumb-o-crats as a middle-of-the-road version of same ol', same ol'. How could you write this article and still take yourself seriously, while being an Obama delegate?
We are all in a quandry, Souix Rose. We have to choose between one corporate lackey over another or we could also vote for a Green or Nader. In some respects it might not matter who we vote for because it is highly likely the election will be fixed for McCain. We simply cannot verify the winner. What is to keep the ballot box computers from being fixed? 2000 and 2004 elections were undisputably tampered. We progressives should be organizing in our local communities to fight against corporate socialism and the give backs to the banks. We need to organize press conferences, demonstrations, rallies and ultimatly a general strike. As Marx once said, when objective conditions get bad enough people will rise up against their oppressors. Do you have any allusions that Obama will if elected will support a new, new deal and raise corporate taxes? Do you think that he can bite the hand that feeds him? Remember that Goldman Sachs is going to profit big time from the bailout and Obama like McCain is financed in part from them. The argument that abortion and the supreme court will be endangered is a plausible reason to support Obama. But, again I am sceptical that the corporate/government will allow an Obama victory.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is not up to the job and needs to be replaced now. He has run through the lions share of the money the Federal Reserve had and is now looking for a blank check from working Americans. Ben your fear has taken over and we can no longer forgive you for the errors of Allen Greenspan for now the errors are yours this time and your time has passed.
Norm, we have a "real" proven progressive running for office, his name is Ralph Nader.
But, you support a machine politician Mr. Obama.
What can I think of your political wisdom?
Okay, has anybody seen this? ... Never mind the article (which is important enough) but read the COMMENTS!!! ... Are these all "Common Dreamers" ... or are these genuine fed-up Americans?... I wonder.... Is it too good to be true that readers of US News and World Report are seriously interested in Third Party ideas??
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/09/22/should-third-party-candidates-like-ralph-nader-bob-b...
There’s no excuse for allowing the collapse of the U.S. economy to happen.
No amnesty, no pardons.
Pursue the Bush administration beyond January 20 until they are brought to justice.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Pursue the Democrats also, because they WILL NOT PURSUE BUSH. They will be bailing his ass out next week.
Solomon, of course, is writing in support of Obama. He's a Dem Party delegate pledged to Obama. However, his "too big to fail" theme in this essay falls flat - flat on its ass.
Once again, Solomon's favored candidate has betrayed the Dem Party base - if you define that base as working people.
Obama favors the $700 billion bailout. He plans to cut back on social spending now that Wall Street needs taxpayer funds. "Too big to fail?" Yes, says, Obama. The financial institutions that caused the housing bubble and securitized the debt are too big to fail. Yes, Norman, Obama says, "Yes."
Obama's position just about totally blows Norman's essay out of the water. There's really nothing more to be said. Obama is on the side of the Wall Street financiers who fund his campaign.
Sorry, Norm. It's another betrayal, like FISA. Obama hasn't even been elected President yet and yet he sounds just like John McCain. Please stop trying to persuade us with ideological paeans. We know our positions, and we've seen them ignored over the years by the Democratic Party. Take a look at the cold hard facts and I think you'll find that Obama is more like Hoover than FDR.
This was a very unfortunate and ill-timed essay.
-TIA
TIA
Muy Excellente! U kick ass. Nuf said...
Shouldn't give these corporate welfare bums any money..they will just blow it on caviar and crack.
How about a Corporate Workfare Program? Make them earn their keep. Get htem out sweeping streets or something for their money.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Alan MacDonald
Norman, something better than FDR will happen!
The latest mass protests in Boston against the Bush/Paulson “corporate financial Empire’s” demands on the people are lighting a fire that this empire will live to regret.
The news of mass protests from Boston is not a second Boston T(reasury) Party, but a continuation of the "outrage" against Empire that started the original Boston Tea Party!
This "outrage" in Boston is a new 'shot heard round the world' against the complete political economic empire (like the political AND economic British Empire) that allows ruling-elite 'corporate/financial Empire' to metastasize from the economic realm and take-over the political realm.
We patriots need to now continue and culminate the American Revolution, that allows America's world-changing concept of 'democracy' to freely spread from the political realm to the whole of our indivisible political economy.
'Free market democracy' is a myth --- a lie that never existed and was made up by the ruling-elite's 'corporatist Empire' to make their economic take-over of our waning political democracy sound more friendly than the truthful term; 'fascism'.
What we're facing is a far bigger battle than just 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' behind the facade of their two-party 'Vichy' government) 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.
too big to fail is the biggest bullshit since uranium from frickin africa. restore glassman-steagall, enforce the sherman anti-trust act(no more big to fail), and hold the CEO bastards finacially accontable.
Serously, contact congress in every way as possible as soon as possible. th bush-paullson plan favors as always the top 1%, and maybe the top 10%; and, as Obama says, even for them the pain is rising upwards (unless the Democrats fold)
adamsja4
Well argued and persuasively written. Obama seems to be doing his best in demonstrating that he can be just as militant as his predecessors as the author makes clear in his brief but well written book.
http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Mules-Democrats-Endless-War/dp/1844672654
"too big to fail". I'm not sure where that meme comes from, but let's use a pyramid as an analogy (a good one, since our economy is little more than a ponzi/pyramid scheme at this point). Anything built as a house of cards MUST fail. Unless something, anything, is built on solid fundamentals it ought to go the way of the dodo. This is basically a universal maxim: whether science, how hypotheses become theories, your household budget, your position as a professional in the workplace, etc. Anything operating at some sort of economic "Peter Principle" shouldn't be bailed out -- rather, it ought to be pushed over the edge in a mercy killing.
I'm at the point where I dispute whether this is as big of a (sudden) problem as has been posed. It could be an economic Tonkin or 9/11 incident just to plunder the coffer one more time for old time's sake. Obviously our economy is in rough shape, but the sudden magnitude of the October (September) surprise this time around suggests to me that the Bush administration, the Fed, and most all of Congress ought to be lined up. And facing a citizen's panel.
Agreed - "Something like this could happen again." - If we reject corporate power, corporate welfare, and corporate capital in this election. This could happen if we reject the incumbent recidivists that are enslaved to corporate paymasters and war mongers.
Norm, state your substantive case FOR Obama as a means to end economic terrorism, debt peonage, and war! These issues are all related; they are all critical to the progressive movement; and they are all facilitated by unchecked corporate power. The best you’ve got is that “something like” progressive action and influence “could happen” if we vote for Obama and do all the work ourselves.
Exploiting this crisis to highlight the dimmest hopes of Obama, while providing darker contrast to the despair of McCain, is straight from the culture of fear playbook. This is another way to minimize the commonalities that exist between the candidates. It makes clear the implication that the progressive movement will be stifled if Obama loses – not a big self-esteem boost for the cause!
Here are some hints about what Obama might do – this doesn’t really sound like fertile ground for the progressive movement under an Obama executive:
Obama will not rescind bush's tax cuts for the rich if we are in recession:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD931VT500
The crisis was unfolding last week and Obama says he has no plan to detail - you call this leadership?
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/obama_holds_back_specifics_for.html
Obama will not implement many of his progressive half-measures and faux-measures given the current crisis:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign24-2008sep24,0,7589690.story?track=rss
We are going to get a war monger and corporate shill if one of the major party candidates wins this election - so why would we throw away our vote on Obama? The only way we can make tangible the progressive movement Norm noted is to directly attack the rabidly pro-war and pro-corporate agenda that is core and common to the ubiquitous, rotten soul of the major parties. PLEASE NOTE: I'm saying the parties share two common objectives that represent the primary causes of our nation's problems; additionally, I would suggest that addressing these fundamental issues would have positive, cascading effects on other progressive issues. Empire and corporate power are the "twin deficits" of our supposedly participatory democracy. The parties may not share these core values equally, and there are salient differences regarding periphery issues; however, differences between Obama and McCain are marginal on these twin deficits, and more importantly, not good enough any more. You know the saying: "necessary, but not sufficient".
We need to mobilize against these criminal candidates and their parties, not try to rehabilitate them. Taking back our electoral system by voting 3rd party/independent is just one facet of this long-term struggle. The short-term crises created by a potential majority party win are unfortunate, but they pale in terms of the long-term costs of successive terms of least-worst recidivists; additionally, these crises are solely the responsibility of the "public servants" who facilitated them, not those who voted against the corrupt official in the first place. The current economic meltdown is a direct result of long-term adherence to least-worst ideology and two-party politics.
We have to break the cycle of violence at some point! We need to start building progressive leverage now by removing our support for the corporate candidates. Responsibility is assuaged if we empower a candidate we don't support. Responsibility to the electorate is further diminished if leadership for progressive action is placed solely on the plate of the movement.
Do you not see how Norm's indoctrination, hypocrisy, and cynicism are at play when he has to trumpet our financial meltdown as the ray of hope for the progressive movement? Does this not say something very incisive and salient about the logic of his support for Obama? Something along the lines that democrats and republicans have made things so bad, for so many years, that now the progressive movement has a chance to be effective; additionally, the only solution for the progressive movement is to debase itself further and vote for a democrat. Norm suggests Obama is the least-worst, hyper-critical choice needed to leverage the menial capabilities of the movement. Norm's twisted and contradictory logic is self-defeating and illogical: democrats are critical because they have been in power all along, they have not been responsive to the base, and have created the very crisis that only they can solve - WHAT? This paradox demonstrates that Norm has no faith in Obama's progressive credentials. It also evidences Norm's very tepid faith in the ability of the progressive movement.
The more Norm trumpets that potential of the base to exploit a crisis, the more he highlights the longer-term inability of the movement to extract progressive action from Obama. Norm has been exposed as a self-pacifying nihilist. His support for Obama belies his own beliefs, logic, and the progressive movement he supposedly supports. Norm has disavowed the imperative of long-term progressive struggle in return for short-term expediency, marginal gains, and a future of shallow and palliative solutions.
Neoliberalism is bankrupt and in a death spiral - its facilitators and champions are the only ones that can save it. As a democratic party commissar, Norm agrees: vote for Obama. Norm knows that our electoral system has been corrupted by neoliberal interests and the shyster major parties that do their bidding – he just chooses not to take our system back. What does this tell you?
The sacrifices of Americans at the hands of the major parties are trivial when compared to the hundreds of thousands of dead men, women, and children in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other targets or our criminal "global war on terror". This necessary and salient struggle will only be hindered and delayed by continuing to demand nothing of candidates and living off of neoliberal scraps from the table.
I really liked this post, so I went back and re-read it and checked out the links you left up. You seem to misrepresent each one in a subtle way to bolster your argument---and that's where you lost me.
"Obama will not rescind bush's tax cuts for the rich if we are in recession:"
From the article:
"Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.
"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."
What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?
"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile.""
________________________________________________
"The crisis was unfolding last week and Obama says he has no plan to detail - you call this leadership?"
From the article:
""Given the gravity of this situation, based on conversations I've had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, I will refrain from presenting a more detailed blueprint about how an immediate plan might be structured until I can fully review details of the plan proposed by the Treasury and Federal Reserve," Obama said. "I think it's critical at this point that the markets and the public have confidence that their work will be unimpeded by partisan wrangling.""
__________________________________________________
"Obama will not implement many of his progressive half-measures and faux-measures given the current crisis:"
From the article:
"With the markets reeling, Obama conceded he might need to postpone parts of his ambitious policy plans.
Over the course of the campaign, Obama has promised to spend, among other things, $6 billion a year to improve the nation's bridges, roads and dams; $500 million a year to help religious and community groups provide summer education; $2 billion to aid displaced Iraqis; and $15 billion a year to develop cleaner energy sources.
He also wants a middle-class tax cut that would amount to about $80 billion a year.
In an interview shown Tuesday on NBC's "Today Show," Obama asked, rhetorically, if he "can do everything that I've called for in this campaign." Answering his own question, he said he "probably" won't be able to fulfill all his promises "right away.""
Thank you.
I did summarize and gloss over the detail. I appreciate you reading these as that was kind of the point. In terms of commenting on CommonDreams (CD) publications, these examples are somewhat of a rhetorical point given the general level of understanding CD's readers already have about the neoliberal-friendly policies of Obama (e.g. his tax plan will cut overall taxes [this is not to belittle Obama's plan to make taxes less regressive and redistribute wealth more fairly] and he plans to raise military spending). Cutting overall taxes and increasing military spending in the face of record deficits is not a typical progressive approach. There is also a general understanding of the facts surrounding Obama’s willingness to compromise on extreme right proposals to get what most progressives would consider very marginal gains. I would recommend reading Paul Street’s new book or his postings on Znet. You can find it all here: (http://www.zmag.org/zspace/paulstreet)
However, to address some of the detail you have noted:
Regarding the 1st article:
The devil is in the rhetorical detail and word craft on this one. The regressive Bush tax cuts for the rich expire in 2010, and Obama has campaigned on rescinding these early to subsidize a middle class tax cut. So, he has backtracked on his promise to rescind the cuts early due to the exigent economic crisis the wealthy now face. This is a matter of personal opinion, but I find it insulting to suggest that the moneyed class that cultivated the current crisis, received huge tax cuts under Bush, and are requesting a huge government bailout, would now be rewarded by keeping their tax break intact. The success of these cuts in bolstering the economy is weak, and our government credit worthiness is being tarnished with each bailout. These tax cuts provided the cheap capital to fuel the housing bubble and predatory mortgages.
You have to be careful with the "increasing" taxes on the wealthy. Obama has never really proposed this: he has only proposed "increasing" taxes on the wealthy by rescinding the Bush tax cuts early (returning them to 2001-2003 levels) and letting them expire in 2010.
Additionally, a progressive could easily argue that in our current personal, governmental, financial market credit crunch, it is very irresponsible for Obama to cut government revenues by reducing taxes on the middle class and, in effect, "reducing" revenues further by failing to rescind the Bush tax cuts as promised. The government deficit is skyrocketing because of a crisis that primarily affects the wealthy, and Obama's short term plan is to cut government revenues.
Taxes should be based on your ability to pay: the poor and the middle class need a cut; however, it does not seem fiscally prudent to cut revenues at this time without coupling them with a revenue offset: rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I see this as pandering and not really addressing our overall deficit and debt in a serious manner. Taxes need to be redistributed and made less regressive. The tax burden needs to be shifted back to corporations and off of individuals, sales taxes, productive labor and physical production. We can’t afford an overall tax cut.
A couple articles that may clarify:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839372,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032703145.html
On the 2nd article:
You are correct here that I should not have said Obama did not have a plan. Obama implied he had a plan but was choosing not to release it.
I would suggest that this is a very disingenuous political ploy. It demonstrates a lack off leadership to withhold his plan in a crisis – this is when it is needed the most. Evoking partisanship as the reason for not releasing his plan is comical. What is partisan about the bailout plan if this is truly a Wall St. and Main St. crisis as Obama has stated? It can only be partisan if the Treasury plan truly favors the rich – this is even more incentive for Obama to release his plan. Politics is partisan – this is no a reason to withhold judgment. Obama has also reversed his position in less than a week: he now says the debate on Friday should go on as scheduled because now is the time when people need to hear from their leaders. Congress is still negotiating the deal, so what has changed? In fact, Obama released a joint statement with McCain yesterday outlining some vague “principles” that should drive the congressional negotiations. Obama and McCain are meeting with President Bush tonight to influence the direction of the congressional negotiations. What has changed? Nothing. Obama’s statements from last week were a delaying tactic and demonstrated weak-kneed leadership.
All of this is beside the point anyway – this package is just another criminal fraud being perpetrated on the American taxpayer. I would recommend Michael Hudson on this matter: http://www.michael-hudson.com/ or his articles at http://www.counterpunch.org/
If you read CD and similar progressive publishers online, you may have noted the wealth of solutions to this crisis that were available immediately after it commenced, many before. Many of them are from studied and credible sources. Plenty of people predicted and forewarned of this crisis and its origins. The causes and the solutions were known but ignored – why?
Obama has hundreds of economic advisors in his campaign – this is their job, literally. Many of his advisors helped setup the deregulated system, facilitated it, and benefited from the fraud. It seems reasonable that he could have taken a position quickly and discussed in some detail what some possible remedies might be – to calm the public and forestall runs on these institutions.
Why have Obama and McCain failed to present a straightforward solution? What are they waiting for? We still have very little detail from both candidates as they opportunistically wait to go with whatever congress can hammer out – they are avoiding the hot potato and engaging in a political spectacle of blame. They are waiting to see where the political wind blows: what can the investment banks get from the government to bailout their gambling, and what will the American people stand for and demand in return. Well, like I said, this is not leadership in a crisis when you already know the problem and relevant solutions, but choose to wait to assuage the interests of capital. Again, the solutions were on the shelf and known. Perhaps Obama waited to offer solutions because he knows the bailout is a farce, and he may need to oppose it all together if the public outrage is too severe.
If you believe that politicians don’t lie, then you can take Obama at his word that he had a plan but wanted to give the people the appearance he wasn’t interfering with the work of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and Congress; however, we still haven’t seen the detailed Obama plan – we have seen the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke plan for several days. Again, is it not acceptable that Obama implies he knows the solutions, but withholds them from the people trying to solve the problem. This position doesn’t not make any sense in a crisis; presumably, the congress needs input on what needs to be done. This seems more like trying to minimize and avoid the tough solutions that Obama already knew had to be taken – perhaps the Congress and Paulson would slam something through without a lot of political fallout.
For contrast, here is a presidential campaign that had more immediate and detailed responses to the problem:
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/nader_predicted_wall_street_me.php
http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/09/24/meltdownbailout/
On the 3rd article:
You are correct that I should have said “delayed”.
The larger progressive point is where money like this should be spent, and why a bailout for the rich should hinder the real solutions needed for victims of the crime. Bailing out the “real” economy of tangible production and public services is the best way to make the economy whole. Bailing Americans out of “debt peonage” is the real way to make the economy whole. It is ludicrous for progressives to support a candidate that willingly delays helping taxpayers at the expense of a $700 billion giveaway to the moneyed elite.
Again, see the links to Michael Hudson above to get a feel for what a progressive might use the same money for:
“At first glance it may sound appealing to taxpayers for banks to be told to use their future earnings to pay back the $700 billion dollars in junk mortgages, bad hedge-fund bets and other gambles that the Treasury promised on September 20 to pick up at face value, no loss incurred. To provide a sense of proportion, this money could have funded the next forty or fifty years of Social Security. It could have funded health care for all Americans. It could have made a big step toward rebuilding the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. But that is another story. For now the major question is just how the banks, insurance companies and financial conglomerates are to raise the money to pay off this bailout.”
Sioux Rose
LITTLE BROTHER: I, for one, look forward to your posts. I have no patience for people who feel no passion, these are times when NOT feeling is tantamount to a serious mental disorder. If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention style. Kind of like Howard Beale... I, too, am mad as hell... Jesus didn't exactly show politeness towards the moneychangers INSIDE the Temple, and those moneychangers have taken over our government, stolen from the widow and handicapped child to make sure that war is continued, and new weapons that will inflict impossible pain, paid for. These aspects of life ASSAULT our consciousness, defy our sensibilities as HUMAN BEINGS... how can we NOT show outrage! At least in this forum we are not tasered, so I'm all for showing what you feel. I just meant to say we ARE all in this together, and might show more understanding for the positions we feel forced to take. I still can't decide if I will be pragmatic and "take" Obama, or vote Nader (who I respect far more), or sit it out on the sidelines. What's a Buddhist to do with these choices?
"What would a Buddhist do with these choices?"
"Observe, and know, your mind".
Many people on the left harangued against FDR as a fraud and a corporate sell out when he first ran against Hoover. After his election, Roosevelt was then savaged from the right as a traitor to his social class, and as a Commie-coddling socialist hell bent upon undermining the American capitalist free enterprize system with his New Deal programs, his use of the bully pulpit against the Wall Street fat cats, and his wife Eleanor's active support for civil rights.
Whether Norman Soloman is right or wrong about Barack Obama's potential to govern from the left once elected is rather beside the point. The Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt's day was an ideological monstrosity, too. But there simply is no place for progressive politics - there's no peace wing - not even a discernable "moderate" Rockefeller faction left within the Republican Party of today. The neo-cons have marginalized them all. John McCain is what's being passed off as a GOP moderate for the post-Reagan/Bush era, and that's a really dangerous development.
Vote third party if it makes you feel better. Stay home and wash your hands of the whole messy, compromising process of electioneering you so prefer, or take to the streets in anger, or despair, or whatever floats your boat.
But you'll have to excuse me for backing out on further comment right now on this lively thread.
I've got a meeting to get to in fifteen minutes down at the local Obama campaign headquarters.
Bill from Saginaw
Thanks for the post, Bill from Saginaw.
You impress me as a realist, but one who's working to move the Democrats to the left, as am I.
Here in Dubuque, our local Obama/Democratic campaign headquarters is sponsoring a Ballot Chase Week of Action, focusing mostly on Fri., Sat., Sunday, and I'll be pulling two shifts on Saturday. It's what I've got to do to float my boat.
Bill from Dubuque
This article puts it all into perspective. What the "little people" need to do is figure what our individual financial bail-out would be and call our elected officials with that amount and insist we get it all and get it now. For me, $500,000 should do it: pay off my bills, credit card balance, mortgage, business loan,and buy out my small,small business as each week my costs to do business climb. I know I am a bargain compared to what Paulson and the big corporations have in mind. I will call my Senator and Congressman (again) tomorrow!!
I'll take Huey Long over FDR.
Benito Mussolini praised the New Deal as following his own economic program, saying in the New York Times, "Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation."
Sioux Rose
CYGNUS: Excellent 3:43 post.
LITTLE BROTHER: Playing diplomat, the thing held in common with most who post on CD--Obama fans, Obama "settlers," Nader fans, and "other," is that we all share the pain, and these ARE painful times. It is painful to see so much waste, graft, corruption, fraud, contempt for human life--American and Iraqi, and of late Afghani--and face the pre-selected choices, a crippled media, restrictions on protest, frightening means to control dissent, evisceration of our GUARANTEED Bill of RIGHTS, and now our "hands" forced to write THE check that bails out the very ones who have trespassed against us.
One lesson to the world that is viewing this from a more objective distance is the PRICE mammon extracts from any society. There is a wisdom to the cosmic circle, its 12 motivations situated to check-balance the potential ravages of any singular player/perspective. The emphasis on miliarism in our society is alloting to Mars a disproportionate share of our fiscal pie; and this is supported by an equally diseased love of mammon.
Ironically Christ represented the path that put both of these pursuits behind... he advocated peace by letting grievances go, turning the other cheek, and not seeking treasure on THIS plane. Those that claim to follow have inverted the teachings and gone to war over titles, names, ideas divorced from their founding principles, much the way those who claim patriotism are often clueless about the trades on our precious rights now being erased.
Perhaps if we acknowledge our common pain, what it does to our souls to be tortured by the knowledge that our government has gone to war on fixed evidence and plundered at least 2 other nations, and STILL been left bankrupt, that it's let GREED and ANGER rule its direction and the results are crystal clear to any with eyes to see. The reformation process, which is to say the promise of the rising phoenix can only come after the ashes. Looks like the crash and BURN is ostensibly in gear... these are THE times that are given to test what we are made of, and part of that process is determined by "choose ye which Master ye shall serve." Our "leaders" have chosen Mars and Mammon, and only by strength of will, soul & intellect can we begin a new path and draw others along. The times demand nothing less.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, Siouxrose. I certainly agree that pain is a common denominator here, if not a common dream.
Ironically, I was confronted earlier this year by someone close to me, though living far away, who didn't realize that I was "Little Brother" until I mentioned it in passing in our e-mail correspondence. This person was apparently freaked out by Little Brother's willingness to express profound anger and scathing criticism on certain issues-- because the Little Brother persona is so different from my good-humored, personable, agreeable and witty in-person self.
We haven't exactly worked through this issue since the initial discovery. I was at first embarrassed and even chagrined, not because my interlocutor directly condemned my comments, but because this person insinuated that certain comments were so intense as to be violent, and suggested that I underestimated how overwhelming and intimidating they could be.
I certainly can't contradict a reader's valid experience, but upon reflection I stand by my general approach: I read articles and comments, and respond with as much truth and clarity and wit as I can manage; unlike my interlocutor, who actually suggested that I not publish comments until after I'd set them aside to "cool off" (like cookies or pies), I champion passion. (FWIW, I'm not sure that this person isn't just more timid and fragile than I realized.) Anyway, it's not a very practical suggestion; the moving thread moves on.
This response is a bit of a digression, but I must say that I neither possess nor aspire to Christ's storied unlimited forbearance. This past weekend, I found myself tag-teamed by detractors who became truly exasperating. I was distressed, but felt compelled to rebut their ridiculous challenges. To return to where I started-- I'm intrigued by your suggestion that common pain may be a foundation for common cause. But, as always, the devil's in the details. Cheers.
I said what about my eyes?
"Keep them on the road"
I said what about my passion?
"Keep it burning."
I said what about my heart?
"Tell me what you hold inside it?"
I said pain and sorrow.
He said, "stay with it."
Jallaludin Rumi
You impeach for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Bush is guilty of all, in buckets.
John Nichols pointed out in his impeachment book that high crimes and misdemeanors don't mean violations of the criminal code (although a Bugolsi has made a case for murder), but high POLITICAL crimes. Misusing the trust of public office. Cronyism, looting, concealing public records. What is so difficult about constructing a case against Bush/Cheney?
Bribery? It is now accepted, not just in the White House, but in Congress.
Treason? Attacking 3,000 citizens on 9-11, in order to further their nefarious plots. Destroying the crime scene, opposing and delaying an investigation, then placing on operative in charge and refusing to testify or turn over public records? How can you not call this treason? Oh, yeah, because if treason prospers, none dare call it such.
Barack Obama chimes in on why he opposes impeachment in mid 2007...
"...I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority,…I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction,…We would once again, rather than attending to the people’s business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus.”
*** I guess Obama believes that lying our country into war, outing an undercover CIA agent, illegally wiretapping its citizens and torturing prisoners denied habeas corpus are not offenses great enough for him to support impeachment and uphold his oath to defend the Constitution??
obama could have taken a stand for the american worker here but he has not
mr paulson was with goldman sachs for 20 years as chairman until he went into government in 2006 and as such he authored this financial nightmare more than anyone else
when he left goldman he cashed in for 500 million dollars and paid not one penny in income tax on that money
this is the guy obama wants to keep on his staff
at least wackjob mccain would like to get rid of him - he doesn't have the authority to do that but it is the correct sentiment
its hard for people to concede that obama is a fraud - their hopes get crushed yet again
that is the way it is - when both these candidates are rejected then real options must be considered
options like a real reform candidate - no offence ralph
we need someone who will piss on the bailout document out of sheer respect
cheers, b
My Mother and Father's generation successfully met the challenge of regulating the greed of capitalism after the great depression.
My aging generation believed the greed of capitalism was totally checked, but chose to worship success over all other values.
My adult children's generation, and that of their children must face the reality that corporate capitalism is an intrinsic evil. It is their children's generation that will work for a Democratic form of Socialism, and to participate in a revolutionary consciousness that works for a more just, sustainable and compassionate world.
"...The U.S. nuclear arsenal is too big to fail. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, undermined by Washington, is too small to matter..."
Speaking of which...
The local progressive station uses CNN at the top of the hour for "news".
They just reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be arguing before the UN General Assembly today regarding Iran's right to have a nuclear program.
They didn't say Nuclear Weapons Program, just Nuclear Program.
Every reader of Common Dreams is, of course, fully aware that Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus has a right to pursue a Program for Nuclear Energy.
Apparently CNN is either too lazy or dishonest to report accurately. My guess is dishonest.
CNN presents dishonest and inaccurate headlines virtually every hour on our local progressive station.
I've written the owner of the station repeatedly.
He responds every time that CNN is the gold standard of news and he doesn't believe there's any bias.
This is an independent owner of a progressive station. A rarity indeed in radio.
Yet even he doesn't realize CNN is shoveling disinformation daily.
We're sunk.
It seems a bit of an oxymoron to have an "independent owner" of a progressive station when all the truly progressive stations I know are community owned; such as the Pacifica stations, KPFK, KPFA and others, as well as KBOO in Portland.
Instead of slathering $1 trillion of lipstick on the fascist pigs who have stolen our treasure:
Our treasury doles out 1 or 2 trillion dollars to open small, well-regulated community banks where the community decides the best way to invest? Family farms, infrastructure projects, small business, local manufacturing, green energy.
Meanwhile, back in D.C., tax policies are changed so excessive wealth (+5 million McCain?) starts paying up to pay down our national debt.
an online letter to representatives to stop the bailout
http://ga3.org/campaign/congress_no_blank_check/xixdkn34p7iewd3b?qp_source=20080922%5fnoblankchck
While I appreciate and agree with Norman Solomon on his larger points, I disagree with him vehemently in his support for Obama. He is NOT the answer; he is a large part of the problem. Progressives have to WAKE UP and reject notions of pragmatism and realism and instead embrace true progressives who will do what is NECESSARY. Obama is now talking about "putting on hold" the few good things he might have accomplished as a terrible President had he been elected in November. Democrats no longer deserve our support, not even the few "good" ones, who are enablers of the capitulaters.
Normon Solomon makes an intelligent links between the hundreds of billions given to war profiteers and the hundreds of billions now being sought for Wall Street.
More linkage noted in the articles:
Wall Street’s special offer – but you must act now!
AmericanChronicle.com
September 23, 2008
http://americanchronicle.com/articles/75216
Let's bail out the greedy, the crooks, the suckers
AmericanChronicle.com
September 22, 2008
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/75078
If big were better, EXON would be the cheapest gas on the road.
For Obama to become another Roosevelt, he would need a movement that would MAKE him act like another Roosevelt. When Roosevelt came into office, there was a leftist-populist movement that was decades old that could influence the politics of tens of millions of people. I don't see any equivalent in the early 21st century USA, corrupted by the money and power of empire, and hollowed out by decades of Reaganism.
As Joshua Frank perceptively points out in his article, "Solomon has in the past dished out scare tactics in an attempt to threaten progressives into voting against their own interests..." and that would include, as Frank notes, pseudo progressives like Barack Obama.
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09232008.html
"..the power of progressive movements became too big to fail. Something like that could happen again."
You are in a dreamy, misty world of illusion if you think Obama is the leader of a progressive movement.
I find that people all over the political spectrum, including progressives, love to operate with a lazy-minded dualism (e.g. corporatists and non-corporatists), creating the simplest possible model of politicians and political parties as it takes the least mental energy to maintain. I detest such information-poor models as they do nothing to increase predictive ability or understanding.
When I see Obama, I certainly do not see a typical corporatist, i.e. someone most interested in padding his bank account. Actually, as pitiful as the Republican pundits appear to be in analyzing personalities, I believe many of them have him pegged right. Obama has a messianic personality. Obama, who must know he is facing great danger as a black (in appearance anyway) candidate, has demonstrated that he is extraordinarily ambitious and willing to take great risk to achieve his ambitions. If he can become king of the world by playing the corporatists' game, he will do it, but if he could become king by leading a progressive movement, it seems clear he would do that too. Unlike someone like Bush, who by his upbringing and social position has always been dedicated to right-wing economic positions, or a McCain who has always been dedicated to militarist positions, Obama is more of a blank slate who is flexible and willing to do whatever it takes. If we do have a depression and great turmoil, it is conceivable that Obama could initiate radical changes if he perceives such to be politically advantageous to him, which would be true only if the progressives are pushing him and prodding him, and the nation, along with way. McCain, like Bush, would never initiate any radical changes towards the left, though he may towards the right, regardless of the political advantages, because leftist policies go against everything he has ever believed in.
Of course, you are absolutely right, we should be prodding Obama right now! Unfortunately, you don't have a leg to prod on if you're a Democrat Party delegate, such as Solomon. Still, I admire him for all the work he has done on behalf of the American people. For years he worked tirelessly and was effective in bringing down the nuclear power industry - well, not all the way down but at least slowed them down substantially. Thank you Norm!
And you are right about Solomon's accomplishments lately. He came around our town to talk about health care and actually gave more time to a discussion about why we need to support the Democrat Obama and not a real progressive. This could have been the fault of the audience and their questions. Many of us spoke up about the conflict: Obama is not supporting single payer health care so if you are for it, and he's against it, why support him? Is he putting pressure on the Democrats? Is he issuing warnings to Obama that his support for him is conditional? Is it conditional? I would imagine not. Solomon is a true-blue Democrat now, which is why he doesn't have any teeth at this point.
Obama is against impeaching Bush, too. What is it about Obama that makes Democrats so willing to minimalize his ominous choices for advisors, his bad votes, military agenda, etc.? oops, how could I forget. The scary Republicans! If I were an empire and had my very own duopoly, I'd design things exactly the same way. It's a win-win!
Hopefully, Solomon won't be swallowed whole by the status quo. He could be a valuable asset, even if he stays within the Dem Party. At least he thinks he's doing the right thing and that's better than not thinking about it at all. And don't forget ......
Vote Nader 08 (Come on Norm, you can do better!)
Hank Fur
Well said. I have Norman Solomon's well written War Made Easy and also the excellent DVD of the same name which makes it all the more frustrating why someone of Solomon's credentials would support a militant such as Obama.
What is the point of comments such as yours? What is the point of stating that Mr. Solomon is "in a dream, misty world of illusion"?
Are Mr. Solomon's internal states germane to the subjects that he writes about? I suppose perhaps sometimes they are. But you seem to be throwing out ad hominem attacks that do not address Mr. Solomon's larger point. There is a chance here, people. That is what the message. It's not about Obama or McSame or some neanderthal wolf-slaying plastic-faced Nurse Ratched from Alaska. It's not about Biden. That dude is just Biden his time anyway, bidin' his time until he can throw swanky parties at the Naval Observatory.
No, but seriously, we will always have the leadership we demand. Obama is receptive. Open. He is not going to be a rubber stamp for corporate control. And now that the markets have collapsed a lot of the cover for GOPuke economic (and foreign) policies has been exposed. The point is that the next president is going to be much more beholden to the people because the people have been hurt the worst. We have a pretty decent chance of riding out these neo-con (neo-liberal) economic policies that have been robbing the world blind all these years.
Obama does not have to be "the leader of a progrssive movement." All he has to do is get out of the way and allow needed reforms. This is not going to be so hard given all the public anger over the current financial meltdown/rip-off.
My response? see Erroll's comment above and attached link.
You say "All he needs to do is get out of the way and allow needed reforms". Exactly!, he's doing that. He's getting so far out of the way of progressive reforms that he's crossed to the other side, so why support him???
The answer to the question "Why support him?" is so obvious I hesitate to say it among the keen intellects that frequent this site. The alternative is abysmal. McCain is far far far more destructive than Obama. Obama does support a lot of progressive reforms. The main point though is that he will not be an obstructionist because (unlike McCain) he is not a complete lackey of the corporate fascist boys.
Sorry to be optimistic and smile on your cloudy day, but I really believe that under Obama we will once again have a fed govt (at least a DOMESTIC fed govt; foreign policy is a lot more resistant to reform) that addresses and serves the interests of lower and middle class Americans. We will see govt investments in infrastructure, education, and clean energy.
I don't need to spell out the immense difference between Obama and McCain. An Obama administration would be far more likely than a McCain administration to implement programs of social uplift, far more likely to protect and strengthen public schools, far more likely to respect the Endangered Species Act and preserve biodiversity, far more likely to support mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and so on and so on.
In short, only a closeted Republican with ulterior motives would promote the argument that Obama is so deeply compromised that a vote for Obama is essentially the same as a vote for McCain. Please take that argument back to where it came from and do not think that the intelligent readers of this website will fall for it.
The Demoks are so very far into the extreme right gutter, they deserve not one word of praise. Let them eat the same karmic cake as their Repuk gutter-mates. We progressives are trying to drag this country out of the extreme right gutter and we ain't gonna do that by praising the status quo.
Obama has expressed his desire to EXPAND the military.
With that one decision alone he ensures all of us, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there'll be no funding for any of the progressive programs he proposes.
There's no money left.
The day-to-day activities, all of them, of the Federal government are being financed by debt.
Do you want him to borrow and spend like the Republicans?
A little logic is all that's required to see that Obama is blowing smoke.
Cygnus
This writer [as do I] agrees with your sentiments. He also points out that in a speech that Obama gave this past weekend, Obama seems more interested in giving comfort to Wall Street than in ameliorating the conditions of the poor and working class in this country. He also notes that in an interview that Obama gave last Saturday to the N.Y. Times, Obama is not averse in retaining the services of Henry Paulson. All this does lend much credence to Obama'c claim of being an agent of change.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s23.shtml
Please stop with this closet Republican nonsense! I've never voted for any Republicans. I am completely opposed to Barack Obama as I disagree with him completely on foreign policy, economic policy, and even on much of his domestic policy positions. He is now saying he may have to "put on hold" all of the things you say we must vote for Obama because of his integrity. I know you are frightened of the boogieman McCain. Please remember that there are millions of americans who will vote for him against their best interests. This is NOT progressives fault nor responsibility!! My vote is my vote, and I will never ever vote for someone I dislike as much as I do Barack Obama.
I doubt if they'll stop, progressiveparty. The reactionary would-be 110% progressives who post here are simply incapable of grasping that it is possible to reject Obama's candidacy on principle, or in good faith.
They reject the likes of you and I like an organ transplant recipient's body rejects an incompatible organ. Thus, in spasms of cognitive dissonance, they'll cycle through every defense mechanism in the book to explain you away: projection, hostility, paranoia.
We have the advantage of absolutely knowing that we're not moles or trolls or plants or closet Republicans or frauds or phonies or narcissists. They're at the mercy of exasperated self-stoking and self-confiming delusion.
And it's an apparently infinite regression, such that even if somehow you manage to convince the person who thinks they've "outed" you that you're not at all what they think, they simply switch to an equivalent dismissal, e.g. well, if you're NOT a Republican mole or sympathizer, you're doing their work, so you're just as bad. Or you're a "Hater"-- the one-size-fits-all accusation. In any case, anyone who doesn't support Obama, albeit with reservations or even trepidation, is not a bona-fide progressive, and should make like a tree and leave! We don't BELONG here, I've been told.
One such embittered wacko recently claimed to have "reported" me-- for spreading anti-progressive sedition and getting on its nerves, presumably. Sad, really.
We've all seen those cartoons where Wile E. Coyote or Elmer Fudd takes several steps off a cliff into thin air, then suddenly looks down and THEN begins to fall. I think that we have that effect on those desperate enough to believe that the Democratic Party/Obama is genuinely part of the solution
What idealists don't realize is that nothing ever meets the ideal.
Because Obama's not perfect you're not voting for him.
And if McCain gets elected you'll pretend it wasn't partially your fault.
You'll bear some of the responsibility none-the-less.
There are only two candidates with a chance to be president.
If McCain wins, you'll have no right to complain.
You need to take a logic class.
Your non sequiturs have more non in them than any others I've seen.
you just wait and see.
Little Brother, Nice post. If I ever called you a republican troll I sincerely apologize. I'm guilty of doing that once or twice here---but I can't remember to whom.
You state your case well.
Let me say...Thank You for your post!
Little Brother. A brilliantly lucid post.
THANK YOU for your post !
Mere lawmakers -- too small to matter -- are expendable
so are judges as I read this Fascist Scam of the New American Century.
Great summary. If only we could see the planetary ecology as too important to fail. If only we could see world peace as too important to ignore.
If only we could see the US constitution as too important to fail. If only our elected officials could see their oath of office (you know, the one where they promise to defend the constitution) as too important to fail to uphold.
"Something like that could happen again."
Right Norman. Sure.
Obama is no Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, RFK or MLK.
He's on board to bail out the rich. To spy on Americans. To grant corporations the right to break any laws that suits their needs in D.C..
These are starkly different times and a starkly different country--thanks to democrats bending over time and time again for GWB.
No thanks, Norm.
But you're still going to invest in my Perpetual Motion Machine company, aren't you?
May I at least send you a prospectus?
Nicely done Mr. Solomon; says everything I have come to believe as of lately. And so many wonder why we moderates are voting Democratic. Thank you,DeColores.
Rockerbabe1
Very Nicely Put!
I not only do not think that these institutions are are too big to fail, they are too big to be allowed to survive.
The collapse of media in this country was even more devastating than the banking disaster but received virtually no coverage.
The five corporate media outlets that remain chose to censor stories that ended our democracy and transformed our country from one ruled by law to one ruled by wealthy elites.
Just a few of the stories they ignored which destroyed our freedoms:
(1) The Downing Street Memos (irrefutable smoking gun proof that we were lied into Iraq)
(2) The loss of Habeas Corpus (the building block of democracy)
(3) 4 million people, mostly democrats, scrubbed from voter rolls in 2000 and 2004.
(4) Telecommunications companies were tapping our phones BEFORE 9/11.
(5) First Amendment lost with creation of "Free Speech Zones".
I could list 100 more.
Like the banks, these media companies failed.
Like the banks, these media companies were too big.
Any company that's too big to fail is too big to exist.
For the sake of what's left of our country we need to break these media companies up into little pieces.
And send the propagandists who run them to jail for a long time.
LeeAnnG
What a great one-liner: "Any company that's too big to fail is too big to exist."
Perfect. Just perfect. Corporations are not human beings, and they should never have been given the same rights. The powers-that-be who want corporations to be equal with real people are often the same ones who want the country to be run "as the founders intended" - or at least claim to. But corporations had limits in the beginning. This is one case in which we need to revert to the "original" rules.
I'd love to see some trust busting and breaking up of the conglomerates, too. Wonderful post, Cygnus!
LeeAnnG
What a great one-liner: "Any company that's too big to fail is too big to exist."
Perfect. Just perfect. Corporations are not human beings, and they should never have been given the same rights. The powers-that-be who want corporations to be equal with real people are often the same ones who want the country to be run "as the founders intended" - or at least claim to. But corporations had limits in the beginning. This is one case in which we need to revert to the "original" rules.
I'd love to see some trust busting and breaking up of the conglomerates, too. Wonderful post, Cygnus!
Right on Roncypert! You take the prize for comment of the day! You da man!
These damn "institutions" are certainly way too big and ought to be allowed to collapse the way they would in a free market. But no. This is the opposite of a "free market." This is crony capitalism or cartel/monopoly capitalism or whatever you want to call it. It's govt being used by giant corporations. (And now they are one and the same, so the distinction doesn't even operate anymore; the state IS the corporate; corporate staff members are literally in Congress writing the enabling legislation at the direction of corporate supervisors in the Republican Party and the White House.) It's all highly centralized and all three "branches" of the federal govt are now run by a single arm. That single arm is robbing the public blind, funneling money from the public treasure into the corporate troughs while spying on ordinary Americans and using the power of the state to intimidate and control people. They've wrecked our democracy and trashed the Commons and run back to their gated communities to wreak more havoc and death.
There is something to be said for small, if only we could find it in banking. My past history with banks is that I have had 3 buyouts in the last 25 year with regard to local banking institutions. Maybe a credit union is next on the horizon.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1