Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Fox to Protect the Henhouse?
Does it really matter which party is in charge when it comes to bailing out the Wall Street hustlers whose shenanigans have bankrupted so many ordinary folks? Not if the Democrats roll over and cede power to the former head of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank at the center of our economic meltdown.
What arrogance for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson-who the year before President Bush appointed him treasury secretary was paid $16.4 million for heading the company that did as much as any to engineer this financial travesty-to now insist we must blindly trust him to solve the problem. Paulson is demanding the power to act with "absolute impunity," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who admonished the treasury chief: "After reading this proposal, it is not only our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution as well."
Clearly, it's a vast improvement to have Dodd in the chairman's seat of the Senate Banking Committee, asking the right questions, rather than his predecessor, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, who presided over the committee in the years when the American economy, long the envy of the world, was viciously sabotaged by radical deregulation legislation.
Gramm, whom Sen. John McCain backed for president in 1996, pushed through the financial market deregulation that has brought the American economy to its knees. Maybe this time Congress won't give the financial moguls everything they want, including a bailout for foreign-owned banks like Swiss-based UBS, where Gramm now hangs out as a very well paid executive when he's not advising the presidential campaign of McCain, his old buddy and partner in crime. Oops, sorry, no crimes were committed because the deregulation laws Gramm pursued and McCain faithfully supported decriminalized the financial scams that have proved so costly.
Just check out the language of Gramm's pet projects, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street, the former act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing. The latter legitimized the "swap agreements" and other "hybrid instruments" that are at the core of the crisis.
The legislation's "Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000," Title IV of the law-a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the Christmas recess-provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.
One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III, ensured the "Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements," which successfully divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm's law is at the very heart of the problem. But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry mergers: "No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000. ..."
Even some Republicans on the Senate committee expressed exasperation Monday with the swindles that they had voted for with such enthusiasm in the past, as well as with giving Wall Street yet another blank check. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., condemned Paulson's proposal as an effort to "take Wall Street's pain and spread it to the taxpayers." He added, "It's financial socialism and it's un-American."
He's wrong on that last point, for what is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state that services the politico-economic elite at the expense of the people is more accurately referred to as "financial fascism." After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company's corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler's bubble burst.
Smell a rat if Congress approves the Paulson plan without severely curtailing CEO pay and putting a freeze on the mortgage foreclosures that are threatening to destroy the homes of millions of Americans.
- Posted in
69 Comments so far
Show AllExplain to me if you will why we should turn this bailout over to one man, a guy that last week says "don't worry", but this week says "danger is so imminent you must make me Emperor."
Why should any CEO, CFO or COO collect full pay or God forbid a bonus for driving their company into the ground.
Why should we bail them out without full equity positions in each firm?
And is this the answer? We need a lot more evidence than the word of the guys that got us here. And it makes me a little leery that Morgan Stanley and others want to participate. Money to be made in this proposal? If thetas the case, its a bad proposal.
As far as Paulsons argument that if we limit CEO's pay and bonus packages they won't participate. Let them go under then. Isn't it criminal to put your benefits ahead of the benefits to your company and its shareholders?
Let me get into Nostrodamus mode, the Dems will huff and puff for several days, and then vote for the give-away, enabling rickety Republicans to stand tough and vote against it. How does that sound?
Why should CEOs get eight figure bonuses? If you were the head of a company that last year made record profits and this year got middle class taxpayers to give you billions of their borrowed money, no strings attached, you have earned your money, no?
"Let me get into Nostrodamus mode, the Dems will huff and puff for several days, and then vote for the give-away, enabling rickety Republicans to stand tough and vote against it. How does that sound? "
The Dems did that on CAFTA in 2005 and the vote was so damn fucking close. The Democrats had a PERFECT opportunity to stop that scam but THEY FUCKING BLEW IT ! This Friday there will most likely be a VERY VERY VERY close vote except that it won't be Tom Delay who will be keeping the voter call open to get that 218 votes in the House and there won't be any serious filibustering in the Senate.
So far you guys have only convinced me we need to call the French and ask for the loan of a guillotine.
How much do they want for it?: We're broke! Will they "take it out in bombs"??
Well? Remember the Civil War? When there was no room for compromise after years of actually trying to work it out as best as possible, the Civil War came through bloody as it was. For the last few decades, this country was never able to solve anything peacefully. I'd hate to see this country go through another French Revolution only to see it lose control of itself and perish irreversibly because I know that war never really solves problems but creates more but this country is living on borrowed time and borrowed money and it ain't gettin' pretty.
FrederickJohnson September 24th, 2008 2:26 pm
"Let me get into Nostrodamus mode, the Dems will huff and puff for several days, and then vote for the give-away, enabling rickety Republicans to stand tough and vote against it. How does that sound? "
I think you'll see some Dems in tight races vote against it too along with some Repubs that are in sure seats voting for it so both parties can claim it was bi-partisan. That's how they game the system against the voter. You can be sure though that they'll have the votes counted beforehand to insure passage.
Lobo Gris
"Financial fascism.” Now I've heard it all. Lets not confuse the issue here and call it what it is "fascism.” During the Regan years Americans were so afraid of and busy watching the communist we let the fascist in.
Rickster
Scheer seems to point out that our perspective and point-of-view about the nature of the Wall Street situation is very important. How do we characterize it?
Food for thought in the article:
Wall Street drama: Deliver the $700 billion, or the economy's dead
AmericanChronicle.com
September 24, 2008
http://americanchronicle.com/articles/75325
Like Mr. Scheer says, what we have in this bailout is financial fascism. Mr. Paulson was an assistant to Ehrlicman during the Nixon administration and has been part of the problem for many,many years and is indeed one of the many foxes watching their $.This is a financial 911 ( an inside job) pure and simple, and did not just happen as Paulson would have us believe.He and his corrupt crime family have been working on this bailout to protect THEIR $$$$$, FOR AT LEAST 6 MONTHS!
Financial fascism? More like state supported financial terrorism.
Rober Scheer is right: Fascism is by Mussolini´s definition the merger of corporate interests with authoritarian state power and the public is brainwashed into believing it´s all done for their own good.....
I agree with you Thomas More (I like your alias a lot): Let them go under, let the cancer die because it cannot (and must not) feed itself anymore...
Isn´t this the ultimate irony (and a sad day also) in American history:
It all started with "No taxation without representation" and after more than 200 years another aristocracy has taken over control: the financial barons of Wall Street.. with Paulson as the new would-be king...
Greenspan, Paulson, Gramm, Rubin, and the others should be tried for high treason....(Democrats and Republicans proved to be faithful servants to their Wall Street overlords...)
The Jon Stewart/John Oliver reparte' on "The Daily Show" last night was hilarous. Since "W" has no chance at being the best President ever, he's doing everything he can to be the....worst?....No..... the last.
It was hilarious.
I cannot believe we have had 8 years of Bush. It is amazing we still have a country.
http://www.boppoll.com
Obama '08
Oops! Didnt mean to post it again. It was hilarius, wasnt it?
Why does Bailout or Else sould like Blackmail? Or maybe more like a Stick Up. Give us all of your money or else. How convenient to put the blame on Congress if they fail to pass this nonsense and the economy continues to spiral downward. Oh, yeah, the economy failed because Congress failed to act. This whole ball of wax should be shoved right back in the laps of those who created it and let them figure out how to save their own backsides. At least that way if they can't pull off a solution they will have to take credit for their own demise, not push it off on the American public.
"How convenient to put the blame on Congress if they fail to pass this nonsense and the economy continues to spiral downward."
That appears to be the conventional wisdom but I'm not buying it. I think the vast majority of people want no bailout.
Rather than spending billions propping up corrupt companies, why not let the economy crash (I'm not convinced it actually will) and spend that money creating federal jobs to improve our infrastructure ?
Hey, man, they voted for the tax cuts, passed every budget with almost no concessions, etc. And, now, they want to give one more tax cut and another "stimulus". The govt needs revnue and it needs to pay off it's debts! How much good did that $1000 do you , anyway? How much good id it do the economy? it sure didnt lift anyone out of poverty. And, US is so "homowner" obsessed, that it wouldnt help the people who bought houses, anyway--they pay almost no taxes, after all the deductions for "homeownership". The American nightmare.
The problem is a lack of a living wage, and the lack of affordable, decent, green housing.
I would also say a problem is viewing any sort of gambling (stock market, real estate) as a sure thing. Is this not like 1929 ? But instead of buying stocks on credit, the masses are buying EVERYTHING on credit ! Hell, they can't even pay the closing costs on their homes, they have to roll that into the mortgage along with their 0% down payment. How did it ever become acceptable to think that someone who can't save any money could possibly be responsible enough to buy a home ? And I'm not talking about the people who don't have the standard 20%, I'm talking about people who can't even contribute 1%, plus they probably have a truck load of credit card debt on top of it.
In many households that $600-1200 probably went toward paying off that ugly living room set.
"...that it wouldnt help the people who bought houses, anyway--they pay almost no taxes, after all the deductions for "homeownership"."
There is something you don't know anything about.
"...they pay almost no taxes, after all the deductions for "homeownership". There are only 2 deductions; mortgage interest and property taxes that are acceptable. After about 10 years or so, the mortgage interest starts to lose its impact. There are no yearly deductions for maintenance on structural repair, upkeep, depreciation (only landlords) loss of market value etc. Sure when you sell it. But now, any profit on the sale of your primary residence is not taxed, if lived in for prior two years. That ruling was for 55 and older people originally. Most years I owe Fed and State even claiming 0 deductions through the year. When I increase withholding to eliminate year end surprises, there is still something. I still pay about 23% to the feds, 9% to the state, $12k to SS etc.
I do not complain except for Bush's 8 years of criminal deceiving and rape of the economy.
KDelphi September 24th, 2008 6:28 pm
"Hey, man, they voted for the tax cuts, passed every budget with almost no concessions, etc. And, now, they want to give one more tax cut and another "stimulus". The govt needs revnue and it needs to pay off it's debts! How much good did that $1000 do you , anyway? How much good id it do the economy? it sure didnt lift anyone out of poverty."
Tax cuts and stimuli won't do anything to stimulate the economy. When we made "stuff" if the economy was slow when we spent the extra money it would stimulate demand and put people back to work. Now it's all made in China or in other low wage non regulated areas of the world so it will stimulate demand there but do nothing for us here other than give us a few extra dollars to spend. And in so doing it will continue to dig the deficit hole, both fiscal and trade, deeper. The old saying is that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is quit digging.
Lobo Gris
You are missing her point, or, chuckle, I am. I read it as 'No bailout.' Force Wall st. to solve their problem by standing firm. We are not responsible for their attempt to screw people out of their money. My mortgage is in good shape. Wall St. deception probably reduced my IRA by 50%, though. How many more? I say fuck them and Paulson, he's going for his $700 million Goldman Sachs paid him in stock that isn't what its supposed to be.
I have been advocating investment in the infrastructure and alternative energy for homeowners/renters. These alone would firm the economy with production jobs, engineering jobs, etc. And Corporate profit.
The economy won't crash because Wall St. ain't about to let that happen to any large degree.
I have to agree. i made the same point on a few related articles.
The absorbtion of the Democratic party into the Republican party has resulted in the FLP, or Filthy Lucre Party, which is neither democratic nor republican but is long on both Filth and Lucre. Just ask Nancy Pelosi how much money she lost in this catastrophe, or if she can no longer make her mortgage payments (she doesn't have a mortgage because she probably bought her mansion with cash). The only question you need to ask yourself as the ham actors in the congress snort and posture and feign being pissed off is exactly how the FLP will word the bailout bill to make it sound as if "We, the Suckers of the United States" are not being taken to the cleaners but to a Sunday Picnic with Shirley Temple.
Bush appears to have found a way to privatize Social Security through the back door. Rather than mandating that citizens buy securities in lieu of paying into a government retirement fund, we simply take the retirement fund (which is nothing but the Treasury) and dump the money into the private sector anyway, without (even better) giving us a choice of financial products or risk levels. Making taxpayers into unwilling investors will be a fait accompli in a couple of days, with the same ease by which we were transformed into international oil pirates in 2003.
Our language is already outdated. The "government" is now the executive branch, which is today nothing but an extension of Wall Street and other private interests. If you think government includes, say, the Congress of elected representatives and senators, just pay attention this week. They will posture and fuss and piss and moan, and in the end they will rubber stamp this outrageous heist with a few minor oversights and penalties tacked on to make it sound less stupid. I don't know why we go to the bother of electing representatives. The White House could just hire them and issue them uniforms, like the bailiffs and waiters they are.
Now this is an interesting viewpoint.
It sure as hell is!
Prediction:
Congress will soon pass a "law" that grants criminal and civil immunity to anyone who worked in the "financial services industry" since 2000.
Not that the Justice Department has any intention of holding any of their "friends" accountable anyway, but, just in case, Congress will immunize them all FOR THE SAKE OF THE COUNTRY and to PROTECT THE CHILDREN.
"...what is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government."
Thank you. Good post. I would disagree with you on this issue however.
There is no proposal for a corporate takeover of the government.
A proposal suggests choice. The final stages of the takeover occurred about eight years ago. What is transpiring now is merely a significant payout of "dividends" for the corporate investment that was made into that takeover.
The dividend payouts have been occurring in smaller billions over time so as not to incur any real dissent, but the corporatists have tested the "demographic" long enough to know with absolute certainty that they can now make a large dividend payout with little or no protest. In fact, many Americans who will be hurt beyond anything they can now envision, openly support the corporate payouts.
Even you concede the payout is deemed worthy, by suggesting that it would be okay... if only homeowners were allowed get their small taste of the spoils. By doing so, you demonstrate that you too have bought into the lie.
The place is teeming with rats. You don't need to wait until after the fact to recognize them for what they are. We need to learn how to say NO! to the fascist rats... and in a way that leaves no room for misunderstanding.
This corporate payout is the wrong approach to addressing the promlems that face 95% of all Americans.
Bush to address nation tonight on economy woes - George and his Fear Based Evilgelicals certainly have the Bragging Rights to their destruction of the last of FDR's recovery programs - Social Security and Medicare too. We will need to burn Fat Cats to keep warm and sell 'christians' to buy food. Heckuvajob!
Question:
I'm a taxpayer who has a mortgage from Freedie Mac. The taxpayers now own Freedie Mac. Does that mean I now owe myself a couple hundred grand for my house?
Cause, in that case - f**k me, I ain't payin myself another dime!
We're being threatened with "Bailout or Else!"
Let's take the "or Else!"
We're going to get screwed either way. We might as well go down with dignity.
There will be an economic depression. Many will be hurt. But the majority will wake up and smell the coffee, and we'll get a New New Deal. The way will also be cleared for identifying all of the people responsible for the current mess. At the head of the list should be Secretary Paulson, not because he is arrogant, greedy and stupid, but because he has been an instrumental player in the propagation of this economic house of cards.
I totally agree with you. Bring on the "or else" ! I have a feeling it's not as bad as Paulson claims. Not as bad for us, that is. It will most certainly be bad for him.
I keep asking waht the "or else" is, and I get no answers. I am starting to wonder if they have a answer at all.
Did anyone see W on news, net or Daily Show? GAWD! He was "never stupider". And he has a Masters in Business, if I remember correctly. (Bought and paid for by daddy)
"I keep asking waht the "or else" is, and I get no answers. I am starting to wonder if they have a answer at all."
YES ! Me too !! If these a-holes are so smart that they know how to solve the problem, then they should be smart enough to say what will happen if we don't act.
Jesus, didn't Bush's cronies make enough $$ from the war ??
Ron Paul has spoken out against the bailout. I wish he were running for Pres.
My parents lived through the last depression, and that's what will come, probably with or without the bailout. people will lose jobs, no one will have any money to buy anything, or pay their bills, and anyone with money will be frugal and only buy what they can put into their mouths. Taking care of your own will be the rule. And if Bush uses this to become a dictator (perfect opportunity) we will have even less.
You taxpayers need to bail us out or OR ELSE we will lose millions of $$$$$$$!
LOL!!!!!! Thanks for the laugh--I needed that.
Don't worry... in a very short time your moral dilemma will become moot... you won't have a dime to pay yourself. However, you will have all the time in the world to pull up your tattered t-shirt and stare at your navel.
That should be soothing for all of us.
McCain has suspended his campaign. Bush speaks to the nation tonight. This is how coups look in their early stages. This is how bourgeois democracies die. Prepare to resist. Talk before the internet goes down.
The usual suspects: no mention that one of Obama's top contributors is Goldman Sachs who stands to get a windfall of cold hard cash from the peasantry so Obama's friends can saunter off into the sunset with a golden nest egg while the rest of us have to scrape by on crumbs. Man the shite gets deeper the closer we get to the ceremony dubbing royalty on either Obama or McCain. They can sit on top of their high perch and disseminate obfuscations while fleecing the rest of us.
Careful, when you dare post facts that aren't so flattering to Saint Obama, you are quickly labeled a "troll". >:-)
Oh give me a break. Pro-Obama people are outnumbered by 10:1 on CommonDreams.org.
The number of pro or anti Obama posts has little to do with the numbers and far more to do with closemindedness and intolerance.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Raptor [September 24th, 2008 4:53 pm] as I posted elsewhere on CD, you should get your facts straight. Obama didn't take any money directly from Goldman Sachs -- he received contributions from employees of that firm and their families. Goldman Sachs is by no stretch of the imagination a 'major funding source' of his campaign. According to Open Secrets.org, Obama has received $426,902,991 ($426.9 MILLION) in individual contributions and no PAC money as of 8/31/08. Of that amount, Goldman Sachs employees and their families contributed $691,930, a drop in the bucket, relatively speaking. As Open Secrets stresses in its Top Contributors for Obama page:
"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."
-- Open Secrets.org, Center for Responsive Politics.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Maybe you're not a troll, but that would be more believable if you stuck to the truth when you're criticizing Obama.
When Sen Phil Gramm and Enron deregulated the Banking industry, they also
deregulated Electricity. Maine, RI, Ct, all deregulated for the good of the
law firms that are now involved in the re-circulating of electricity for their
own profits and the consumers are paying the highest electric costs in the country.
The Blethen Press is sleeping on the job and that is whey it is for sale..
By their refusal to print the truth they have become complicit.
us army martial law units comming 1 oct. 2008.
you asked for it and you got the govt. you deserve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYxTzDFofZQ
Dick. Now is the time to agitate the army, retired generals.
You Decide
1. Pass something that gives Paulson sole authority (Tsar), not reviewable by any court (above the law), to spend $700 billion (weaponry) to deal with a crisis(war) which has yet to be fully evidenced.
2. Use this as precedent.
3. Create October surprise. Assign sole authority to one person (Bush), not reviewable by any court (above the law), to launch weapons (spend money, kill people), to attack another country (Iran) which will not be fully evidenced.
4. McCain suspends his campaign to deal with financial "crisis".
5. Bush to suspend the election to deal with October surprise enemy.
If No. 1 happens, No. 2 is possible. If No. 2 is possible, No. 3 becomes a more probable event.
Everyone is focused on the 700 billion and executive compensation. Forget that.
Everyone should be focused on the sole authority and above the law precedent.
If No. 2 happens, you will immediately be living in a fascist country.
The media, people of all colors and creeds, Demos and Repubs and everyone needs to shout this down!!! If we don't, the great experiment known as America is over.
If we demand no bailout, then we can move right on to #3.
Everyone opposed to the bailout NEEDS to call their Representatives and Senators and state, in no uncertain terms, that you will NOT vote for them if they support the bailout.