Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBoston Tea Party, 2008
How dare you throw that tea into Boston Harbor! Such is the anti-democratic arrogance of the fear-mongering pundits and politicians who tell us if we taxpayers don't instantly give the Wall Street banking bandits a $700-billion bailout, we are destroying America. Instead of applauding representatives from both parties who, for once, heeded the public rather than the fat cats, the established pundits blasted those who dared get out of line.
It was a time for some of the best commentators to fail and, as much as I hate to admit it, for Lou Dobbs, and even Newt Gingrich, to shine. Dobbs called it correctly: The sky is not falling, there is time for reasoned debate, and why isn't the public being listened to? Gingrich put it best when he said short-circuiting serious congressional oversight over an enormous transfer of taxpayer dollars to an industry is "un-American." Others, with whom I typically am in far greater agreement, just rolled over to give the bankers what they demanded.
"When Madmen Reign" was the headline on a column by Bob Herbert in The New York Times that absolves the Democrats from any responsibility for the crisis despite a willingness of their party's leadership in the past to vote for key legislation proposed by what Herbert condemns as the "anti-regulation, free market zealots" of the Republican Party. Both parties betrayed the principles of a true free market-remember Adam Smith's invisible hand, under which no market player could unilaterally set price?-in favor of the concentrated power of oligopoly to control everything.
Those Republicans who dared to vote, this time, against the demands of the Wall Street power brokers were derided by New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks as engaging in the "Revolt of the Nihilists." While suddenly embracing President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal as the positive alternative to nihilistic behavior, Brooks ignored Roosevelt's main achievement, which was to put the public interest before that of the Wall Street titans.
Wasn't it nihilistic when Congress, led by Republicans but supported by key Democrats, including then-President Bill Clinton, shredded the protections put into place by Roosevelt to control an ever-avaricious banking industry?
Anyone who has bothered to study that history knows that Sen. John McCain was deeply involved in the push for rampant deregulation, and his choice of former Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm, the principal author of the decisive deregulation legislation, to co-chair the McCain presidential campaign mocks McCain's attempt to blame the crisis on everyone but himself.
The Democrats, however, also are culpable, and it was sickening to watch Clinton on "The Daily Show" getting away with blaming a crisis he helped create on overexcited home purchasers. I don't blame "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart for not knowing enough about the subject to challenge Clinton on his own fervent support of deregulation, but it is disappointing that Paul Krugman, an economist and one of the nation's sharpest commentators, should also miss that point. Indeed, in his column for The New York Times castigating McCain for his connection to Gramm, Krugman said voters should be reassured that Barack Obama has Clinton's treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, to turn to for advice on how to handle this mess.
Rubin, the former head of Goldman Sachs, worked as hard as Gramm to pass the legislation his Wall Street buddies wanted. Rubin then returned to Wall Street as a honcho at Citigroup, the first company to successfully exploit the new legislation's nefarious loopholes. As for his insight, it was as recently as January of this year that Rubin termed the financial meltdown a normal phase of the business cycle.
Back in the spring, two months after Rubin's "what, me worry?" silliness on the economy, Obama gave a brilliant speech on Wall Street's problems at the same venue, Manhattan's Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, in which he singled out as central to the problem the legislation that Rubin had gotten Clinton to sign.
Obama should stick with the wisdom of a community organizer from the tough side of Chicago: Fight the bankers who swindle unsuspecting homeowners, and restore the bailout provision that Democratic leaders had proposed but then abandoned-stopping the home foreclosures by empowering bankruptcy court judges to force a renegotiation of terms.
Any bailout worthy of support should put endangered homeowners first, not the bankers who swindled them.
56 Comments so far
Show AllI, for one, hope that this "rescue" bill (none dare now call it "bailout") is seen by the House for the pig with lipstick that it is. Talk about pork!!
I've been a Green, and Independent and, currently, a Democrat. I have the dubious distinction of having never voted for a winner, not because I'm a contrarian, but because I'm not a lemming.
Right now, the Republicans, and a few non-panicked Democrats, in Congress have done a good thing to fight the current administration. Voting against this bill doesn't mean do nothing, it means do better. We still need to press on this.
Contact your representatives and tell them to vote no on this piece of *^# and do better. (Hint: use the phone. The traffic on the government websites has ground the system to almost a complete halt, so forget about e-mail.)
Few things reveal Obama's dangerous tendencies than his closeness to Robert Rubin. McCain's history, as well as his recent disingenuous posturing, show how dangerous he is. But Obama is siding against the people and with the robber barons as well.
Yes, There was a HUGE budget surplus during the Clinton Administration (900+ billion as I recall). So, the Republicans proposed two things - because they had the money:
1) Repeal the estate tax for the rich (marketed as the "death tax")
2) Impeach Clinton
However, since Bush has squandered the treasury, the Democrats took impeachment "off the table" because we couldn't afford it!
Too costly, too "damaging" to the Republic. HA!
Scheer is right. Some of the people who caused problem include President Bill Clinton---who never even gets questioned about it, so much for the freedom of the press; Robert Rubin, who is Obama's top advisor on this crisis, Roger Altman, now another Obama advisor, and Larry Summers, another Obama advisor!
And these Obama people have the gall to claim they're about change!
George Bush's claim that Iraq had WMDs was one of the biggest cons in American history. Obama's claim to be change we can believe in is right there at the top.
It is truly stunning so many be continuously fooled by lying politicians. At some point doesn't learning kick in?
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
Even if some the of the things Clinton did precipitated it, the republicans and Bush Administration accelerated it. During the Clinton terms there was said to be a budget surplus, and remember that Clinton had to deal with the Newt G. crowd; the same congress who was hell-bent on impeaching him for the ML scandal as well as other horrible legislation. Now, that's not to say that Clinton was innocent, but we need to put things into perspective here.
Rather than reply to any one comment here a couple of thoughts:
I have seen no mention of developer financing, you know the parasites that rape the land and build those architectural abortions commonly referred to as 'McMansions? Buying an existing house is one thing, buying a brand new house is another. Here:
a.)Existing house value determined by Real Estate Agents that compare,
b.)Real estate value by private appraisers, bank appraisers and county tax appraisers,
c.) New housing priced accordingly on square footage of dwelling, not lot size, suburban or urban environment.
d.) Private Mortgage Insurance with less than 20% equity.
e.) Developer real estate agents with private mortgage lender availability.
In '93 my house was originally on the market for $325,000, one of two remaining. I bought it for $180,000. In '04-'05 the developers re-appeared, with no notice from the city about their plans. It was obvious to me at the time that real estate was starting to swell rapidly in price. I wasn't expecting it yet because of a known theory, via Reaganomics, that viewing your home as a nest egg for retirement was a bust. But I had already watched my humble IRA get diced and sliced by 30%. But the houses were built and sold for $500,000.00 to $800,000.00 from '05-07 and then the developers stopped like a car that supposedly can 'stop on a dime' in like November '07. These crews were working 24 hr days. There were 100s' of thousand kwhs being burned in lighting that rendered my telescope useless. I could hear the earthmovers and dump trucks all night, 500 ft from my house using the only paved road going south. This went on for two years and abruptly stopped.
A lot of these 'architectural wonders of the 21st century' are empty. The grass is dead, windows glazed with dirt and dust, birds roosting, trees dead, For Sale signs bleakly staring into the street.
Where is that shitbag developer now? The one the 'city fathers,' and local Congressional district Republican, let grease their palms? MMM?
Where did all that Private Mortgage Insurance premium money go? MMM?
Scheer ends this essay by looking for Obama to do the right thing. Alas, the list of Obama's bad decisions before this election continues to grow.
1. Obama voted to fund the wars.
2. Obama voted to absolve the telecom companies for illegally spying on the American people on behalf of the Bushies.
3. Obama voted to bail out rich Wall Street investment bankers that broke their fiduciary legal obligations and committed fraud.
Scheer's entreaty falls on the deaf prominent ears of Obama. After all, Obama's the Goldman Sachs-funded candidate. Obama knows his constituency, and it's not poor folks in Chicago! Sorry about that, Bob. Vote Green.
-TIA
Interesting debate here -- however, it is simply insane to blame the people who bought homes because a debt instrument was crafted for the purpose of swindling them --
Put another way, when the sub-primer purchased the home, they purchased a futures option on a commodity -- the contract allowed them to consume the commodity for a length of time prior to the expiration date on the option --
at which time they would have to pay for the consumption part of the scheme --
a brilliant scheme --
surprise, surprise, a lot of expiration dates showed up around the same time --
the market value of the commodity made the options worthless; ---
pray tell, what wall streeter, bundling worthless home mortgages and selling them to institutional investors, DID NOT KNOW there was a likelihood the stuff he was selling was either worthless or on the verge of attaining that status --
give me an answer...harry reid? why don't you tell me -- nancy pelosi?
why don't you tell me -- tell me which investment bankers did not know that this stuff was worthless junk ---
I'll bet you a dollar to your five cents that there were thousands of high-dollar money-earner bankers who KNEW...absolutely knew...that the stuff they were marketing had less value than the paper it was written on, and probably talked about it freely at a two-martini lunch several days a week --
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE we're "bailing out" -- don't dream otherwise
Any economist or Political leader who calls this a liquidity problem is a bald faced liar. The US Federal reserve just pumped in 630 BILLION dollars into the system over the past couple of days and it made not one Iota of difference.
Thats 630 billion more liquidity. The banks are just hoarding the money, waiting on this bailout so they can make even more. They got that 630 billion ultra cheap and want to lend it out at a higher rate.
Or start the cycle of speculating once again so they can be bailed out in 5 more years.
Uncle Scam wants YOU suckers!
PK
Well the Senate just passed the bail out bill. Did your Senator vote for it? I'm looking mine up now.
The wouldnt even vote on Sanders Amendment.
The Dems will never get my vote again.
Voinovich voted for it, of course.
Sherrod Brown did too. I'm fricking amazed.
Anybody got a link so we can see who voted how??
This still has to pass the House, correct?
Was watching some interviews a little while ago. Many politicians are getting testy about the word "bailout,' they say it's really a fire extinguisher! Even if there is a 'liquidity problem,' it would be incredibly stupid to ask those who caused it in the first place to fix it. Better to set up an 'interim bank' to make emergency loans (at some predetermined rate above prime) to legitimate borrowers, and let those banks responsible for the 'collapse' burn.
Perhaps this interim bank can engage the help of smaller local banks to administer these loans at the percentage rate above prime rate (if those banks agree to accept those terms), and use said money to directly refinance bad mortgages (along with other legitimate loans), while maintaining an affordable monthly payment, even if the length of the mortgage has to be extended to 40 or 50 years. If the big banks complain, threaten them with criminal investigations and possible indictments (or maybe do that anyway). Better, yet, let them explain to foreign investors how they lost their money.
Also, immediately, raise the tax rate on the top 1% income tax bracket to 50%, the 2-5% income tax bracket to 40%, 6-10% to 25% to pay the interim costs, then go back to at least the pre-tax cut rate (meaning before the Bush tax cuts).
While this interim system is in place, design a meaningful regulatory structure that all future lenders must abide by. This would probably be the end of the Fed as we know it. Yaaaaaaaa!
The proposed 'bailout' will only delay the inevitable anyway, so some kind of radical reformation is needed. As Americans we have to take some responsibility and share the pain of contraction as well. Primarily this means, as consumers, except for necessary big items, such as an automobile or house, we only use credit (if we use it at all) to purchase what we can pay off every month when the bill comes due. It is hypocritical to criticize others for living beyond their means if we do the same.
Just some rambling ideas for the day. :D
Some good ideas. Too bad its a done deal.
I will never vote for a Democrat again. And I sure as hell wont vote GOP!!
Dont let the neo-cons fool you with their no votes. Populism is simply not in their blood. Not the Dems, apparently.
Go Nader! Capitalism kills.
This is beyond reproach. Logic would dictate that congress convene an economic emergency policy group with a diverse range of the country's best independent economic and social policy experts from academia, think tanks, small business networks, and other non profits to discuss and draft a sound policy. But alas, its business as usual from our elected cabal.
I've must've heard a dozen ideas in the news (real news - not the corporate garbage spewed on CNN, MSNBC, Fox and television) about the different options available.
This reminds me of the months leading up to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars where terrorist experts, military planners, and foreign policy experts from around the world were warning of the consequences of using a military solution to combat Islamic fundamentalism - all which proved to be spot on.
And here we go again. I haven't read the Shock Doctrine, but from what I've garnered in posts and interviews with Naomi Klein, this economic disaster has all the signs of disaster capitalism in action.
How I dream of Tyler Durden and Guy Fawkes to destroy Wall Street and the Capital respectively. Our withering tree of liberty needs blood. But maybe the masses need to be oppressed further before they break from the greatest WMD ever created - that clever mind controlling device, the one that tells you what to think, what to buy, what is good, what is evil, what to fear and what to embrace. There's even a euphemism for it - the television box.
Only then, will the collective anger and contempt spark an organized revolt and make civil disobedience fashionable.
snydly
PASS THE COVER WALL ST'S ASS BILL?? MAYBE.
BUT THERE SHOULD BE A MASSIVE MOVEMENT TO DRAFT RALPH NADER TO ADMINISTER IT.
CHEERS
Realwealth
Winning the “Disaster lottery” twice.
The bailout being proposed by Paulson is not what it appears to be. This financial crisis resulted from the 'betting on defaults' and is not simply about mortgages, homeowners and too many foreclosures. In fact, these high rates of foreclosure was supposed to happen due to the "Derivatives" or” Credit Default Swaps (CDS)" that became the latest con that the Wall Street played on the public.
Think of a CDS this way--if you own a house next door to me and I take out an insurance policy that your house will burn down. Now, I have no actual ownership of your home and I only get paid on my insurance policy--if your house burns down. So, hey, neighbor...want to play with matches?
Well...of course, it’s illegal in this country for me to take out such an insurance policy--because it’s obvious my incentive is for you to have a disaster and your home burn down. Your disaster is my gain.
BUT, in the case of CDS....the top money players (and only these folks were allowed to buy CDS—the average investor could not do this) essentially took out insurance policies that all these people buying houses would default on their mortgages. Hey new homeowner...want to buy a house you can't afford, with no money down at ridiculous interest only payments? That's right. When these Credit Default Swaps were bought--behind the scenes they encouraged a system that's the equivalent of me asking you to play with matches. The financial markets were fanning the fire through low interest mortgages and looking like they'd created the great ownership society. But now with over 5 million homes in default—these "investors" are winning the disaster lottery because your mortgage default is their gain. These CDS instruments are a winning lottery ticket paying off in the billions.
Ah, but you might be saying--obviously this is backfiring because the investment houses can't pay off the insurance policies to their investors---but its actually working terrifically for those at the very top of the banking world. It’s forcing the consolidation of the banking industry and the few remaining banks, like JP Morgan/Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America are buying up their competition at fire-sale prices.
AND, now we the American taxpayers are being asked to ‘bail out’ the system. Which means those at the top are winning the ‘disaster lottery’ twice. In 2006, $53 billion was paid out in bonuses to folks like Paulson and others at Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch etc. and now, they’re asking for $700 billion more (though value of the CDS instruments is closer to $62 trillion). It’s time to say, thanks, but no thanks…not this time.
(Fortunately in the House, Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon is offering another option than the current bailout--which will hopefully keep the dialogue going long enough to stop this current legislation which isn't necessary)
Good explanation!
This is no accident folks. It's bribery. Gimme all your money, or the economy collapses and 'small businesses all die".
I can hear then in the background. I really hate these guys.
Capitalism kills.
The Good Shepherd Scheer and His Innocent Sheeple
Robert Scheer says "Any bailout worthy of support should put endangered homeowners first, not the bankers who swindled them."
Amazing!
Who else but a "progressive" ideologue like Robert Scheer could find a way to accuse the American banking industry of something that it isn't guilty of?
Swindling homeowners!
These "swindled" homeowners would apparently be the same out-of-control consumers who bought houses they couldn't possibly afford except at temporarily reduced rates of interest, and when those temporary interest rates turned out to be... temporary, all those "swindled" homeowners lost their homes.
Mr. Scheer's one-dimensional spectrum of good and evil shows villians in black hats and handlebar moustaches on the right, and on the left good shepherds like Robert Scheer are herding their eternally innocent sheeple toward a brighter tomorrow.
But the sheeple would know, if they ever bothered to think about it, that the stupid-looking rags they buy from Wal-Mart are created by starving workers who make less than $2 per day. The sheeple would know, if they ever bothered to think about it, that a mortgage you can barely afford at a historic bottom of interest rates will be impossible to pay off when those rates inevitably increase.
But why bother to think, when you have a good shepherd like Robert Scheer to think for you?
Why bother to take responsibility for your own future, when "progressives" like Robert Scheer will excuse you for anything?
Why bother? Because in spite of all the absolution one-dimensional ideologues may dispense for your senseless participation in your own undoing, they can't give you back your house.
There's no chance whatsoever that the Democrats can pass a spending bill of anything approaching the magnitude required to return homeowners to homes they can't even remotely afford, even at significantly reduced prices, unless they also return to the happy days of 2% mortgages, and that's what got us into this mess in the first place... along with the real skullduggery of repackaging all that worthless paper into derivatives and selling it to bankers temporarily as clueless as the sheeple, but not necessarily endowed with the same eternal innocence.
Jacob Freeze
Jacob Freeze October 1st, 2008 5:02 pm
I would point out again that without the removal of Glass-Stegall this would noy have happened at all. Are there some homeowners that are to blame, sure...some. Most were sold a bill of goods. Many should never have gotten a loan and should not own a house. Not their fault....they were placed fradulently.
Antone can see this mess is from Banks and Wall Street with political cooperation. And theres plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle.
Freeze you're misinformed. I was a part of the industry for thirty years and I know what happened. If an appraiser failed to appraise up to contract price, which the banks made sure they had, the appraiser would get no more business from that bank or mortgage company. This was clearly fraud from the top down. This banking practice was also responsible for the rapid rise in home prices because of this process. I left the industry rather than defraud the home buyer and the public, the bankers did not. The bankers profits were very high during this time period. They knew what they were doing. Now they want a public bail out. NO, NO, NO!
You need more than a bad appraiser to sell a house someone can barely afford with a 2% variable-rate mortgage.
For that, you also need a greedy little consumer.
Jacob Freeze
Many of your so called "greedy little consumers" are losing their jobs. Many small business owners are not being paid, or are being paid very late. Some of us "greedy" folks had medical problems and no health insurance. But our banks still gouge us with usurous interest rates.
Some of us were "responsible" and took out fixed rate mortgages. If it was only the "sensible" home buyers with trust funds, (or those who inherited wealth - who are not "greedy" ..of course!) who qualified for mortgages over the past eight years, the economy would have tanked a long time ago before Greenspan proped up the miserable failure George W. Bush's reign with unprecidented interest rate reductions causing a bubble.
Let's give the "Greedy little consumer" a break too.
(please don't correct my spelling - I'm dyslexic, and not "responsible" for it).
Here's how the scam worked Freeze. A Realtor would place an add in a local minority paper saying Buy a Home With No Money Down and No Closing Costs. The phone would ring endlessly. The realtor would meet with the potential buyer and record his financial info, then provide it to the mortgage company. The mortgage company would rate the borrower and for those who could qualify would issue a pre-approval letter. The pre-approval letter would indicate the amount of money the borrower could finance. The realtor would then find a home for the buyer and inflate the price by 25%. The seller would then carry a 25% second deed allowing the buyer to finance the entire property. This was a 100% finance deal. Because of the large second deed signed by the seller (pure blue sky value), the seller would agree to pay the buyers closing costs resulting in a 100% financed no closing cost deal. The only hitch was the appraiser. Against all good business practice, the bank gave the appraiser the contract price and told them to go out and make the appraisal reflect the contract price plus a few hundred dollars. The appraiser, having been told by the bank that he would not get any further appraisals from the bank if he failed to appraise the property high enough so the bank would make the loan, provided the over priced appraisal. The appraiser played along and cooked his numbers to make the home appraise for the contract price which was 25% higher than it should have appraised for. The bank in most cases did not provide "A" credit loans to the borrower. Instead they provided B and C credit loans which paid a whole lot more commission on the loan because the interest rate APR was usually between 9% and 12%. The "A rated loans were only 6%. The added interest rate of between 3 and 6 percent was big profit for the lender. So the lender would often make five or more percent profit on the loan when the "A" loan only paid 1/2%. The bank bundled these high interest rate loans into packages of a million or more dollars by combining the loans. The loans were then repackaged by Wall Street and sold as securities. The Realtor was dirty, the appraiser was dirty, the lender was dirty, and Wall Street was dirty. They all know what was going on and sold the bundled loans to unsuspecting investors as securities.
Now for your assertion about greedy buyers. Yes there were some home investors who were greedy. They believed in "the greater fool theory." There will always be a fool who will buy this home from me so that I earn a tidy profit. These people should not be bailed out. They are however a small minority of the overall subprime loan market.
The majority of the sub-prime borrowers were minority first time buyers who were ill informed by their realtor and their lender. They did not understand the complexities of the home buying and mortgage process, and they were sitting ducks for dishonest people. The dishonesty was rampant among realtors, appraisers, lenders, and Wall Street. These people were taken advantage of. They were most often given a low rate adjustable rate mortgage that began at 6% and rapidly raised at the rate of 2% interest rate per year until they reached the maximum rate of 12% or more. It is these steep adjustments that caused the homeowner defaults. People could no longer afford their payments and their homes were foreclosed.
So although there is some home buyer fault in this matter, the great majority of the fault is in the dishonest and greedy actions of realtors, appraisers, lenders, and Wall Street. Business had the choice to deal dishonestly with the buyers or walk away. Business got rich on these loans and did not walk away. Now Business wants the taxpayers to bail out Wall Street. Unfortunately the Congress probably will do so. It's a terrible mistake to bail them out.
There is an attempt in both business and government to avoid the pain of their corruption. The bail out will not correct the problem but merely put off the pain. Middle Class Americans today are tapped out financially. This attempt to shift the burden of business and government corruption onto the people will not work. If people cannot pay their mortgages, health care premiums, food and utilities now, then later, when the inflationary dynamic of this seven hundred billion dollar bailout takes hold and prices rise steeply, there will be no one who can pay the rising costs. The American Economy is a house of cards. We can either face the pain now or face it down the road a ways, but face it we will. The petty idea of blaming the victim is pure hubris. I know that your mind is made up and no amount of information will change it; but, perhaps this little expose will help others to better understand the scheme and how we got here.
Blame the victim.
You must do very well for yourself in this little oligarchy of greed.
Most of the loans were NOT that. The number one cause of bankruptcy (often form equity loans) is medical costs.
We can determine the McMansions from the people that went broke paying for what should be their birthright. They didnt ask to be born.
I saw some of these contracts. The sellers should be ashamed of themselves.
As it stands, you CAN refinance your second , third or fourth home, or your yacht. But not your primary residence.
Most peole that shop at Wal-Mart, have to. I should , but I never have.
"...in this little oligarchy of greed."
Greed is distributed in the United States about as democratically as any quality in the history of the universe, and unless you just fell off a turnip truck from another planet, you may remember that George W. Bush was re-elected with an absolute majority of the vote in 2004.
Americans got the President they wanted, and the disaster they deserve.
Your imaginary "oligarchs" don't have a monopoly on greed... the sheeple got a full share, even if they stupidly gave away everything else to the plutocrats who can sell them anything.
America is a plutocracy in an even fuller meaning than anyone ever imagined the term could have. It's a plutocracy that includes even the poor in a down-on-all-fours religion of money, and if Obama wasn't raising more money than McCain, Obama would be polling in the single digits.
So we're looking at two candidates who have nothing to recommend either of them except money... One preppie con-man from Hawaii with a knack for selling empty promises on the internet, and one old soldier so twisted by his own ambition that he sold out everything to the Republicans' billionaire bosses for a last chance to be President.
The United States is a mob plutocracy in which a lot of greedy little fools have traded away their lives for the glamorous delusion that they play on the same team as the billionaires they admire on TV.
Jacob Freeze
You are wrong about so many things, I would not know where to begin.
But, I will say that I was at the polls at a minoruity college in 2004.
George W. Bush never won an election in his life. And if Tubbs JOnes had lived (RIP), she would probaly be pushing it right now. As it stands, Ohio will be stolen again--by electing either one of thease rat's asses.
If "greed is rampant"--it shouldnt be, you morally bankrupt, basterd.
This topic has obviously attracted the attention of a demographic different from the usual crowd of over-educated and under-empowered boomers.
Here's "minoruity," folowed by "Tubbs JOnes," followed by "thease," followed by my favorite, "basterd."
I especially admire the comma after "bankrupt." Random punctuation must be a sign of something, but who cares?
The innocence of the mob has been impugned, and the sheeple are bleating their disapproval.
Jacob Freeze
Your ad hominum attack, and the additional fallacies it contains, is worthless.
"...ad hominum..."
Apparently Beavis skipped Latin class again.
Jacob Freeze
Have you ever thought of making an argument, instead of playing everyone's punctuation teacher?
I have RA. I notice my punctuation and typing problems. Fortunately , most people are more concerned with content.
The stats just dont bear your argument out. And, if you dont care about people getting screwed over you are morally bankrupt.
Does it make more sense to you , now that I punctuated it correctly?
When your argument is full of holes, you can always criticize typing, grammer, etc.
You are either uninformed or just dont give a f*ck. Which is it?
Freeze isn't worth the time to craft any sort of reply; much like Bush.
Your retort is that they misplelled the Latin phrase?
Wow. Okay.
Let me reiterate his point then.
Your ad hominEm attack on Scheer is unwarranted and negates any good point you might make.
And your attitude of contempt and blaim for the People will not be likely too win you many supporters.
This is the kind of thing that only the annonymity and distance of the Internets makes possible and it is quite annoying, in my opinion.
"...annonymity..."
Apparently Beavis also missed English class.
And since you can't figure it out for yourself, Beavis, let me point out to you that I'm one of the few posters on CommonDreams who isn't "annonymous"...
Jacob Freeze
Actually, "Beavis" isn't as much of an insult as "matti" and "karlof1" probably assume, since (in a slightly different context) Beavis and Butthead made the most intelligent comment so far on the latest ridiculously complicated but obviously corrupt proposal to save the bankers:
If you listen to it backward, it says "This sucks."
Jacob Freeze
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=21088http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article16.php?id=7...
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/09/28/the-community-reinvestment-act-cra-did-not-cause-the-mortgage-c...
If you think that people who took out loans are completely to blame for this mess. you should do some reading.
Is it the homeowners fault that the market was unreasonably inflated?
Do you hate all homeowners? Is that your problem?
What a truly awful way to think. Millions of people are losing their homes and their only real investment, and some jerk comes up here and post something like this.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Right now, children in India who never had a chance to do anything else are being sold into sweat-shops to make trash for Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart Nation is indulging in an orgy of self-pity for ruining themselves.
Boo-freaking-hoo!
Jacob Freeze
Yep. And little old ladies and children are sleeping in tents in New Orleans and Texas.
Boo-fricken-hoo, for real.
Capitalism kills.
"...Obama has ...Robert Rubin to turn to..." Yikes! I am going to vote for Obama
but it's stuff like this that makes it so hard to support Democrats.
I am not a great fan of Harry Truman but I can just imagine what kind of campaign he would run against this bunch.
He would sound like what most of us think a real democrat would sound like, not like Robert God-Help-Us Rubin.
My favorite comment on this whole bailout mess was a home made sign held by someone outside of the Wall St stock exchage. It said "Jump, you Bastards!"
The dateline next to your tag says "October 1st" ~Big Mac~.
Maybe you should wait until it says "November 4th" before you decide that you will vote for Obama.
That way they can't count on your vote no matter what, and they may have to attempt to REPRESENT you in order to get it.
Truman in today's world would run a campaign much like Obama's.
What's the point. No corks should be popped.
A bill is sure to pass once the "nays" get what they want out of the deal, and it appears the Dems have already caved on this, as they love to do.
I guess we need to send tea bags to Congress.
It can't hurt! There's no shortage of teabaggers on the Republican side of the aisle, though.
Reduce the Military Budget - Legislate massive oversight of Private Military operations like Blackwater; keep the pressure on.
I say "bring on the depression!" I want it so bad! I want total chaos! ... and then THEY will not have enough money in the World to protect themselves from the people.
Bring it on!
Coffeelover,,,,,
I can't resist the old comeback "Be careful what you wish for..." But I do wonder why all the neocons who love the concept of creative destruction, so much that they want to employ it not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan and Iran and elsewhere, are not advocating it here. It is really a concept from free market economics, and so why don't the free marketeers and neocons support large-scale creative destruction in this instance? I say it is better to stick with the devil you know, and so if they are going to engage in such a policy, the best place to start is the Wall Street-Washington Axis of Evil. And a depression would certainly be a good start. Then the games could really begin.
Bring `em on!
-G.W. Bush
Why is it that I have read so many posts in the last few days that start out with brilliant reasoned analysis... only to get to the last paragraph and find that each is just one more disguised support the of the bailout... only with a bit of tweaking.
Don't you get it? Any support of a bailout will only give credence to the misguided assertion that anything about it is good for America.
No matter how it is written to appear to have a semblance of balance, if a bailout is passed, it will be used to screw American taxpayers.
We have to just say NO!! We have to say it loudly and repeatedly until the message reaches those Democrats who are fawning over CheneyOilCo's monkeypuppet and his ransom demand. There isn't a chance in hell that any bailout will put "endangered homeowners first". There are no favorable odds that those who control programs initiated by a bailout will ever seriously consider "homeowners" for any due consideration at all.
The truth of the matter is that there are huge profits to be made on a failing economy... especially if you can control the timing. This bailout, is simply an attempt to garner profits up front before the underpinnings are kicked out from underneath the "homeowner".
NO! NO! NO! Just say it!!
Don't go through all this effort to provide a good understanding of the wretched workings of the corporatist machine and then suggest everything would be fine if the bailout had some provision for the "homeowner". It only provides the Wall Street criminals and their bff Obama, more leverage though bs talking points.
A bailout is NOT the way to address any effort to meet the needs of 95% of all Americans. Don't be used like the other 100+ Democrats who voted for this travesty.
Ancient empires had high priests. Modern empires have economists. Neither could predict anything but they gave the ruler someone to blame for his mistakes.
While suddenly embracing President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal as the positive alternative to nihilistic behavior, Brooks ignored Roosevelt's main achievement, which was to put the public interest before that of the Wall Street titans.
Roosevelt was primarily interested in saving capitalism, even though the capitalists themselves (who were as stupid, greedy and vicious then as they are now) hated him for it. The public interest was indeed well served by The New Deal but that was secondary.
I care whether someone says they want to help the general population.
I care MORE what they DO.
This faux-populism is more dangerous than strict conservatism.
The poor never have had the power. The middle class was the only thing DC had to fear.
It will fail NO MATTER WHAT. And it is not an accident.
Neo-liberals and ne-cons--two sides of the same coin.
A couple of months ago, I noted that, maybe , the reason Obama and Clinton dont get along, is that, they are too much alike.
I stand by that.
KDelphi and Little Brother,
Congrats on very astute observations. Ouch! Who wouldn't like to think Obama was cut from finer cloth than Clinton, but in the end, what is that suit gonna go out and do with their power? Savvy centrists. We need to get so far beyond that, but in the approaching knife-fight with Republicans, who ya gonna support? We have no choice regarding the election, but the future's wide open! Eyes on the prize (non-violent revolutionary change).
Quite so. This, I think, resonates nicely with someting I noted a couple of months ago-- that Obama is more or less a chaste Bill Clinton.
All of the superficial charisma, neo-liberal, Republican-lite policies and none of the unsavory lechery!
KDelphi and Little Brother,
Congrats on very astute observations. Ouch! Who wouldn't like to think Obama was cut from finer cloth than Clinton, but in the end, what is that suit gonna go out and do with their power? Savvy centrists. We need to get so far beyond that, but in the approaching knife-fight with Republicans, who ya gonna support? We have no choice regarding the election, but the future's wide open! Eyes on the prize (non-violent revolutionary change).