Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Wall Street Bail Out Plan: We Had Alternatives
The following statement was presented on the floor of The House of Representatives after Congressman Kucinich voted against the Wall Street bail out plan, H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:
The public is being led to believe that Congress has reconsidered its position because we have before us a better bill than we had a few days ago. It is the same bill plus hundreds of new pages for hundreds of millions of tax breaks. What does this have to do with the troubles of Wall Street?
Driven by fear we are moving quickly to pass a bill, which may produce a temporary uptick for the market, but nothing for millions of homeowners whose misfortunes are at the center of our economic woes. People do not have money to pay their mortgages. After this passes, they will still not have money to pay their mortgages. People will still lose their homes while Wall Street is bailed out.
The central flaw of this bill is that there are NO stronger protections for homeowners and NO changes in the language to ensure that the secretary has the authority to compel mortgage servicers to modify the terms of mortgages. And there are NO stronger regulatory changes to fix the circumstances that allowed this to happen.
We should have created a mechanism for our government to take a controlling interest in mortgage-backed securities and use our power to work out a new deal for the homeowners. We could have done this. We should have done this. But we didn't.
Now millions of Americans will face the threat of foreclosure without any help. And the numbers will soon rise for a number of reasons. Not only because of the Alt-A, jumbo mortgages which will soon be reset at higher interest rates, but because the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is pushing up rates on adjustable mortgages and more than half of the US adjustable mortgage rates are tied to LIBOR. Homeowner defaults will grow in significant numbers. Let's see if Congress will be as quick to help homeowners on Main Street as they were to help speculators on Wall Street.
Now the government will have to borrow $700 billion from banks, with interest, to give banks a $700 billion bailout, and in return the taxpayers get $700 billion in toxic debt. The Senate "improved" the bailout by giving tax breaks to people in foreclosure. People in foreclosure need help paying their mortgage, they do not seek tax breaks.
Across our Nation, foreclosures continue to devastate our communities, people are losing their jobs, and the prices of necessities are skyrocketing. This legislation, just like the one we defeated last week, will do nothing to solve the problems plaguing American families or help them to get out from underneath the oppressive debt they have been forced to take on.
Unfortunately, there has been no discussion of the underlying debt-based economy and the role of our monetary system in facilitating the redistribution of wealth upwards.
It is not as though we had no choice but to pass the bill before us. We could have done this differently. We could have demanded language in the legislation that would have empowered the Treasury to compel mortgage servicers to rework the terms of mortgage loans so homeowners could avoid foreclosure. We could have put regulatory structures in place to protect investors. We could have stopped the speculators.
This bill represents an utter failure of the Democratic process. It represents the triumph of special interest over the triumph of the public interest. It represents the inability of government to defend the public interest in the face of great pressure from financial interests. We could have recognized the power of government to prime the pump of the economy to get money flowing through out society by creating jobs, health care, and major investments in green energy. What a lost opportunity! What a moment of transition away from democracy and towards domination of America by global economic interests.
Years ago, in a Cleveland neighborhood, I saw a hand-scrawled sign above a cash register in a delicatessen. The sign said: "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash." The sign above the Speaker's rostrum reads "In God We Trust," but we are paying the cash to Wall Street.
It is not as if we had no other choice but to pass this bill.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
120 Comments so far
Show AllAbsolutely!
But it is really wrong to realize that only McCain or Obama will win this and decide between the two?
Nader certainly could never gain a plurality to win anytime.
Barr....less than Nader
The Lady...after seeing a quote from her, never in a million years.
No, it's not really wrong to realize that the MSM has picked these two candidates for us as being the "electable" (read "acceptable") choices and that the odds are that most people, apparently like yourself, will not use their ballot to vote for the best candidate but for a considerably lesser one because the MSM has declared the best one "can't win."
You are right that that has been the "logic" of the voting public for a long time which is why the country is in such a mess.
.I would respectfully remind you that your previous post noted support for not voting for any politico that supported this bailout...gotcha!
So, is it Barr or Nader, Thomas?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Here's where the Senate Roll Call on the Bail out is.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213
The House Roll Call section is here. I couldn't get the section on roll calls though due to unusually excessive activity there. I wonder why?!
http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legvotes.html
Thanks radio_tec for the links. We have one month before the election and the powers that be are counting on all of us getting caught up in sports, sex, violence, and the debates between now and then.
A better strategy is to take the list of both Senate and House members who voted in favor of the bail out of Wall Street and make it viral on the internet. We ought to suggest that anyone who voted "Aye" for this measure who is up for reelection ought to be voted out of office.
Poet
Poet,
Caught up in sports, sec, violence and the debates? NO WAY! BTW, the link to the Congressional Roll Call works now. My Congress critter voted for it and he (is) was a Progressive.
Here's where the Senate Roll Call on the Bail out is.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
The House Roll Call section is here.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/index.asp
Just out of curiosity, Radio-tec, was your "Congress critter" (love that term, by the way, and will use it myself, if that's OK) one of those whom Obama personally lobbied for its support?
This bill is nothing more than the birth of another Executive Branch administered cash-cow.
(c) NECESSARY ACTIONS.—The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation, the following:
(1) The Secretary shall have direct hiring authority with respect to the appointment of employees to administer this Act.
(2) Entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
(3) Designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Federal Government, and such institutions
(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Financial Stability Oversight Board shall be comprised of—
(1) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
(2) the Secretary;
(3) the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency;
(4) the Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission; and
(5) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
Don't you just love the words "without limitation" when applied to hiring and contracting by this Secretary of the Treasury? Wonder if we'll be hearing the words "no bid contract" again soon? And check out the membership of the Financial Stability Oversight Board. Is it me or are NONE of these people answerable to the people through our representatives in Congress? And aren't these the same people who have been overseeing our economy and financial institutions and on whose watch the whole thing came crashing down? And then there's the Special Inspector General who is appointed by the President and whose job it'll be to report fraud and waste to...ta da, the Attorney General. Finally, there's an Oversight Panel (not ot be confused with the "Oversight Board") appointed by the House and Senate leadership whose function is to propose regulatory changes (too little, too late!). Only the first 112 pages of the Senate bill is devoted to our economic mess. An Energy bill takes up the next 149 pages and a whole slew of tax breaks for things none of us have ever heard of, the remaining 191 pages. And we're supposed to believe that House members had enough time to seriously study this mish-mash of a bloated bill.
I guess gross incompetence means nothing in Washington. There is just so much wrong with the House bill and now the Senate bill. Someone needs to give this Congress its walking papers. Let's start fresh.....
Busque la verdad!
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Several Democratic members of the House of Representatives Friday said calls from Barack Obama helped convince them to switch their votes and back a 700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout.
Maryland Democratic representatives Donna Edwards and Elijah Cummings said they had both received calls from the party's White House nominee, after voting against the original package in the House on Monday.
"It meant a lot to me that somebody who at least has a 50-50 shot at being the next President of the United States would take time," Cummings said. [...]
Cummings and Edwards are both members of the Congressional Black Caucus a majority of which voted against the bill on Monday. Sources said that Obama also placed other calls to members of the key Democratic voting block. [...]
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gtMQFHBqLwqub55GP9-JLffOJZ9g
With regard to Cummings and Edwards, as you note:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-te.maryland04oct04,0,1153285.story
"Earlier this week, his (Elijah Cummings) answer was to vote against a government bailout and demand more assistance for homeowners facing foreclosure. Yesterday, after he had received assurances from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama that such homeowners would get relief, he changed his answer.
Cummings and (Donna)Edwards, who represent districts hit hard by foreclosures, pushed for provisions in the package that would have allowed homeowners to restructure mortgage loans. Edwards said that rejecting the earlier version of the bailout offered an opportunity "to try to engage in a different conversation with our leadership and with the administration about the absolute need to do something at the bottom as well as at the top." But she lamented that "almost from the beginning, we haven't been able to impress on our colleagues the importance of protections through the bankruptcy courts for individual homeowners facing foreclosure." Instead of the legislative language they sought, Cummings and Edwards got calls from Obama, who told them as president he would make such restructuring a priority."
But note:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/3/wary_of_public_outcry_revised_800b
"ROBERT JOHNSON: They can, what I would say, use the crisis anxiety of the market fragileness to, how would I say, accomplish their aims on behalf of money and do no service for the public. We have no mortgage relief in this bill whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the Black Caucus, some housing advocates and the AFL-CIO spent the night negotiating with Barney Frank’s staff to take out provisions that made mortgage relief harder. Now, I will say Barney Frank’s staff was working very hard to do that—they’re on the same side—but on the Senate side, somebody snuck that in on page 61 of the bill.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain. What do you mean?
ROBERT JOHNSON: There was a provision, that made it more difficult to get mortgage relief than under existing law, put in that bill at that time. But there are many other provisions of this bill."
So THIS bill, that actually makes mortgage relief HARDER, is the one Obama talked Edwards and Cummings, among others, into supporting? So, as Sen. he caved, but as Pres. he would make it a "priority"?
I would be really curious what Edwards would say if directly asked what she thought about that provision in the bill and how many more of her distressed constituents would lose their homes because of this increased difficulty while Obama, assuming he's elected, works on this "priority". And if he is not elected, she has just voted for a bill that makes it worse...
It may be that the markets aren't the only thing that are untrustworthy right now.....
Is everyone else reading about all of the crap heaped onto the bailout bill and getting absolutely sick about it ? Because I am.
This is the best summary I've seen, dated Oct 1 though so not sure if it's 100%. But the arrowmaker pork is in !
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/709604.html
-Exempt from excise tax certain wooden arrow shafts for use by children.
-Extend cost recovery period for motor racing tracks.
-Increase tax deduction for charitable book giving.
-Extend restaurant improvement credits.
-Allow fringe benefit reimbursement for qualified bicycle commuters.
-Provide small tax credits for purchase of energy efficient dishwashers, washing machines and refrigerators.
What is this ?:
-Make permanent authority for undercover operations.
-Make permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- The plight of an Ohio woman who shot herself as deputies tried evict her from her foreclosed home was part of congressional debate on the $700 billion bailout.
Addie Polk, 90, was being treated at Akron General Medical Center after shooting herself Wednesday as deputies were at her door with eviction papers, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said Friday during floor debate on the rescue plan for U.S. financial markets. Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) foreclosed Polk's home after acquiring the mortgage in 2007.
Kucinich used Polk's circumstances as he spoke against the rescue plan that eventually passed the U.S. House of Representatives 263-171.
"This bill does nothing for the Addie Polks of the world," Kucinich said. "This bill fails to address the fact that millions of homeowners who are facing foreclosure."
The bill, which passed the Senate Wednesday, "will take care of Wall Street," Kucinich said, "but democracy is going down here."
----------------------------------------------
I hope all those that signed this assault on the American People are reincarnated as magots and are condemned to feed on the intrailes of their living offspring.
Court records show Polk took out a 30-year, 6.375 percent mortgage just four years ago for $45,620 with a Countrywide Home Loan office in Cuyahoga Falls. She took out a line of credit that same day for $11,380.
Her La Croix Avenue home was appraised by Summit County in 2004 at $31,230.
The Countrywide branch did not return a call for comment Thursday.
Polk essentially owed the same $45,000 when the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) filed for foreclosure on her home in 2007. Fannie Mae assumed the mortgage from Countrywide.
Following foreclosure this year, Polk's six-room, 101-year-old home was bought by Fannie Mae at sheriff's auction for $28,000.
Her house now belongs to the lender.
Summit County sheriff's deputies say Polk ignored multiple notes and letters leading up to Wednesday's eviction. She also ignored the foreclosure action filed in court.
It wasn't until Tuesday that she called the sheriff's office in disbelief. The next day was eviction day. [...]
Polk and her late husband, Robert, a Goodrich retiree, moved into the home in 1970. He died in 1995, but Polk continued to live independently, but alone, still driving her late model Chevrolet to the grocery store and church. [...]
http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/30240349.html
.So, is this a measure of the 'greatness' of our nation?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
wilmoor wrote October 3rd, 2008 3:09 pm
"The voices of reason are the last thing "they" want to be heard. Those like Representatives Kucinich, Defasio, and a few others continue to give hope to those of us who are listening." Words worth repeating a few times.
The clarity of Rep. Kuncinich made me think of a simple way to view the problem:
Imagine you had to provide water and reduce water waste in a city, say, Las Vegas, while in a long major water drought, like we have in the West.
Step One: Convene a discussion between civil engineers, health people, traffic directors, etc. Their experience and ability to learn from mistakes provide the raw ideas for a solution.
Step Two: Convene a meeting of leaders to select between alternative plans.
Step Three: Commission a group of experts to evaluate the problems and benefits and cost of each solution proposed.
Step Four: Convene the group of persons responsible for major aspects and ask for a definite commitment on whatever is selected as the final plan.
----
Anyone can see that none of these preparations were made by the White House or Congress prior to our "crisis", the troop removals from Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq. Our Government, once more, once more "has failed us" like Clarke said to the 9/11 Commission.
In their usual "shoot from the hip" approach, they did not analyze the problem to determine its cause and alternatives on how to deal with the effects.
They say money is needed for "banks to lend money within 5 days or Thursday", this after six months of reducing GNP and loss of a Million jobs in the last two weeks. That's right! In the last TWO week about a Million jobs were lost.
Two Issues: Should money go to banks to bail them out and allow them to loan it?
Call this the Downstream Solution.
Or, should money be loaned to Industry and those facing foreclosure to increase jobs and give workers back their place to live? Call this the Upstream solution.
The Conclusion is obvious, we are helping banks to make loans to millions that are unemployed and lost their homes? Isn't that what created the problem?
The solution, like the water plan solution, must begin Upstream, help people go back to work and their purchasing power will then, and only then, require loans from banks. Precisely what we are NOT going to do. Think of a proper unprintable.
---------------
Now for the consequences:
Can they throw $800 Billion to the Economy without driving up Inflation?
Inflation is perfectly socialist taxation: Everyone will pay higher prices!
Will this fool the Economy? Not on your life.
The more inflation we have, the more we price our goods out of the International markets. We are only postponing the day of reconning.
The coming Inflation, like all the inflations in the past, will be followed by a Recession or a Depression, depending on which side of the street you live, the rich side or the unwealthy and homeless side.
So what happens to our schools and teachers? They will "muddle through" like the Senator from Arizona said of Pakistan, or was it Afghanistan? I forget.
Right now the best Engineering students in the world are enrolled in India, the rejects are enrolled in MIT, CalTech and the other top engineering schools in the USA. Hard to believe but True. Of course, we will do nothing about that
and will continue to hire over 100,000 of the best trained minds in the world, EVERY YEAR! This is too depressing. I must stop here, I am wondering how did those incompetent people ever get so much power in Washington? Has Democracy failed to reward our nation with the best rulers? The End.
"The voices of reason are the last thing "they" want to be heard. Those like Representatives Kucinich, Defasio, and a few others continue to give hope to those of us who are listening." Words worth repeating -now.
Hmpf. The only thing trickling down on the average US citizen aint left over champagne "foam" from wall street and big banks, I'll tell you that. It's a word they aren't allowed to say on NPR.
Oh my, let's all give them some more of our money. It's hard for the rich to go out and find themselves regular jobs. They won't have enough money to maintain all those houses, think of the adjustment it would take.
I guess those big guys kinda "forgot" they had significant influence over the US economy, or the AIGs of the world just didn't know this beforehand. They made those risky investments with money they "forgot" belonged to other people. And only by accident mortagage companies and banks scammed people into sub-prime mortgages at usury rates. We should help them out. That is really helping ourselves, right?
So pony up some more for them. Then it will "trickle down" again.
This bill represents an utter failure of the Democratic process. But that is a rerun of a rerun. I mean it isn't the first time we've seen that happen in the last eight years.
Thank you Pelosi. Love you too.
You won't believe this part of the ride.
Dennis Kucinich,
I was probably the only person in Mobile, Alabama to have your bumpersticker for president. It is still on my bumper. I now have Ralph Nader next to yours. I am thinking about voting for Obama as I want a candidate who will beat McCain and Palin. He is apart of the system but a less worst choice then McCain. I wish I could have been voting for you. Thank you for standing up for the people of this nation.
sharonlyn: Obama supported the bailout. You can vote for Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich if you wish. Many people who would prefer to vote for someone other than Obama (excluding Republicans) won't do so because they don't think anyone else stands a chance, but one of the main reasons no one else stands a chance is that these same people refuse to vote outside the two-party system. It's circular reasoning, and it's destroying our country.
Amen!
sharonlyn,
Voting for Obama only makes you complicit. Obama is a sell-out - one of them, not one of us. Skin color does not matter, it is the act.
Please re-think and vote either for Nader or the Green. Don't be complicit.
Obama is far from perfect and winning the White House takes a whole lot of compromising, I don't care who gets within striking distance. The Dems are weak and badly need lots of things, but they're not fascists, as are the gang that controls the Repugs right now. And McCain/Palin/Rove are dangerous, very dangerous.
Nader has a lot of great things about him. Plus, as as pseudo-'candidate', without a chance to get even close, he has the freedom to promise all kinds of things that would kill Obama's chances of winning if he promised those kinds of things.
On Nov. 5th, we will have elected a new president...Obama/Biden or the very dangerous McCain/Palin.
Obama is extremely smart, thoughtful, exceedingly able--look at his amazing campaign. You're absolutely doing the right thing by voting for him.
You're showing real down-to-earth political smarts, and clear thinking. Congrats and thanks for posting that; it's an inspiration.
This voter lives in a state that is going to give its electoral college votes to John McCain. So therefore it is much better for him to vote his conscience and vote for Ralph Nader. It would be different if it were the popular vote that elected the President.
Referencing Progressparty's comment:
As a 54-year old white, Catholic, progressive who has lived in the red state of TN for far too many years, I share your exasperation with seeing my vote come to naught each presidential election. I would also be the last person to argue against voting your conscience. For me there is enough of a difference between Obama and McCain to justify my voting for Obama. To state that there is no difference between the two parties is simplistic. To vote for a candidate that can not win is self-defeating.
No party platform has ever fully represented my beliefs,i.e, pro-life,anti-war, opposed to the death penalty, healthcare for all, fair trade as opposed to free trade, care for the poor, opposition to corporate welfare, etc.,etc.
So although it has been tried over 700 times before, I suggest that we demand a change to the electoral college process, something along the lines of Maine and Nebraska, or Colorado's proposal for vote proportioning of electoral votes, or even majority of votes alone. Under any of the proposals above every voter would benefit. Third parties might actually have a chance to develop and become serious contenders in the National debate. This proposal too is fraught with perils (see Plato), but we can change this situation if we unite. Demand change and expect it (see Margaret Mead).
Yes we can!
Here's the problem. There will ALWAYS be a "difference" between the 2 parties. The real question is is there enough of a difference to convince all those folks who stay home to actually get out and vote? The more the Dem mucky-mucks are convinced that, as one journalist put it, "short of child rape", Dems will support Obama, Obama can be as Rep. as he likes, as he is revealing himself to be more so every day. The problem is that, for a lot of folks, that "difference", as it gets smaller and smaller, is not enough to convince them it's worth it to vote and the smaller it gets, the more of them won't bother. I really do believe that, in the end, what lost the Dems the election in '00 and '04 was this simple fact - they had lousy candidates (sorry Gore fans, but the Al of today is not the Al of '00).
They have another lousy candidate now. Sure he may be "better", in some folk's way of thinking, but for many he is simply not better enough, or, conversely, McCain is not worse enough, to bother to actually pick one over the other. "What the heck," they figure, "neither one has a plan that will help me. Why bother?" And frankly, for the purposes of all but genetic Dems, they would be pretty much right. McCain may be a wolf, but Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and he has simply managed to pull his wool over your eyes.
Third parties do have plans that would help them, but, oops, all you folks out there who want your man have convinced them that the 3rd party "can't win". The end result of your third party bashing is not that they vote for your marginally "better" (to your way of thinking) candidate but that they don't vote at all. And, in the meantime, your knee-jerk support of the Dem candidate, no matter how bad he gets, ensures that he will continue to follow the same path as the Reps, 'cause what beats the smell of money in the mornin', or the evenin' or any and all of the time.
What does it say about your party that you have to hold your nose to vote for "your" candidate? But if you really want your DEM to win, get a better Dem!
As for me, Obama is not "better" enough, by a long shot. I'll stick with real progressives like Kucinich and Nader or McKinney. When enough of you Dems who are turning blue from holding your noses at the polls decide you'd like to breath again, come join us, we have a ways to go.
.Deceptive politicking ill becomes you. If you bothered to go to votenader.org you might be surprised to find that Nader's promises are backed with detailed plans as to how to get where he wants us to go. Unlike Obama who gives great speech but is simply a gasbag of empty but flowery rhetoric.
As long as we continue to vote for those who continue to betray us we will remain enmired in this mess of a status quo.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I wanted to thank you for your good wishes for Matt and the rest that are serving. Its most appreciated.
"-Allow fringe benefit reimbursement for qualified bicycle commuters."
I like this one, but why does it have to be attached to one of the biggest upward transfers of wealth ever known on Earth?
Eat the Lenders.
Democrats have no one to thank for this mess but themselves. Can you say "Community Reinvestment Act"?
Even Clinton warned about Fannie and Freddie, but his fellow democrats did nothing to rein in their lending.
Oh Dennis, I got your voice mail message today asking for my vote. Hopefully, you will not be representing me - and embarassing our community - for much longer.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/crazy_talk.html
Try this link. I'vve got a bunch more, but, I am not going to post them all again. You guys want to belive that it is the fault of the poor (they have SO much power!!)
Now, please explain to me how Kucinich is "embarassing" your community?
How in hell would you end up on his contacts if you had not voted for him inthe past?
John Mitchell, thank you, this thinking is destroying our country. How much longer can it go on? That is what I ask my friends who attack me for supporting Nader.
I'd like to point out this "anybody but Bush" has been going on since 2000. It could go on and on like this forever. I am not going to live forever. I want a third alternative.
Kucinich is correct as usual.
I knew this bill would pass in some form when I watched CNN "reporters" ranting about the "failure" of the House to pass the bill the first time. Then the Senate porked the bill with a few billion more in taxpayer funding of totally unrelated items, and the House bought it. No hearings. No testimony by economists. No deliberation.
History will judge who the real "terrorists" are. We elected the bastards. Stock up on the KY because you'll need it no matter who wins Nov. 4. As I see it, this economy cannot be fixed by any known conventional means. Or as Paul Krugman of the NYTimes wrote earlier this week, we are now "a banana republic, with nukes."
-30-
Not yet. In a banana republic, by now the tanks would be in the street. That's not going to be necessary here.
In a perfect world, it would matter what we the people think. In this one....
Here's where the Senate Roll Call on the Bail out is.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
The House Roll Call section is here. Click on Roll Call 681 next to H R 1424 and prepare to puke.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/index.asp
What the $850 billion bailout is is a tax on us all who are not rich--produced by the tax-cut king. Flat out, it's welfare for the rich: let the ghettos starve, while we pay for the gasoline that propels the yachts and the Gulfstreams.
Add to that our Iraq expense and military expenditures and we're totally bankrupt. Who would fardels bear?
Good article.
Now:
Why did Kucinich endorse Obama?
Remember all the CD readers who dismissed people when they said things like, "I love Kucinich. However, his political function is to keep progressives from leaving the Democratic Party by promising that they will be represented and that they can transform the Party. But then he flips and instructs them to vote for a candidate who will represent the exact opposite of their values".
Do those readers still disagree with this assessment?
I'm not sure waht I said before--but, yes . I disagree.
Kucinich is a fairly progressive guy in a very conservative state (so is Kaptur). They both live in urban areas, so they are probably "safe". Kucincih is remembered as the Mayor who saved the city.
Kucinich thinks he can do more by getting re-elected than he can by running alongside, say, Nader. I dont begrudge any true progresasives who stand up for the people.What's more--he actually does it, he doesnt just "hope" for it.
If Kucinich does not endorse Obama (even Sanders did--he may regret it btw), he would not be in office very long. That us a choice each one has to make.
If Ohio loses Kucinich and Kaptur, it will have no "liberal" represetntation at all.
Who would he caucus with--the GOP? Even Sabders caucuses with teh Dems.
I also dont agree that Obama is "the opposite of my values". I differ from him alot. i do not plan on voting for Obama.(back off!--all 295 million of you!including my family!)
I disagree with McCain more. Obama may keep things from getting worse.(although that seems less and less likely). I would really hate to se that urban district in Cleveland lose their one supporter.
.I hear and understand your words, but this is frustrating as heck. The Party of Joe Lieberman, who still caucuses with the Democrats while supporting McCain is not a natural home to such as Kucinich or Kaptur, not any more.
While the politics of those two Ohioans ( ites?) makes them allies of mine I fail to see how they can hope to be effective spokespersons for progressivism while remaining in a party that suppresses such political ideology in favor of rampant neoconservatism. So, by remaining democrats they assure that they can continue to insert earmarks for their respective districts, but what else can they accomplish?
When Nancy Pelosi was a San Francisco politico I voted for her enthusiastically, now , though Ive moved out of her district I wouldnt give her the time of day. Barbara Boxer used to get my vote automatically, now I have emailed her office explaining why I no longer can cast a ballot for her with a clear conscience.
Times change, circumstances change, events make necesary changes in ones course. So it is for any progressive democrat as well. Conscience alone should necesitate their leaving that party, if they have exhausted all hope of changing it for the better, and I believe they have done that.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I actually agree.
Just the thought of a majority GOP in both houses, could mean the deaths of alot (more) people, I think. Maybe, Dems, too.
Maybe there are so few good Dems left, that it is uselss. The "party leaders" certainly treated any amendments or suggestions with obvious contempt!
We certainly need more parties--not just three, really.
I was given this article on instant runoff voting--it seems to be a good idea. What do you think of it?
(Here--for anybody who had miscontrued the term, before this, like I had)http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
.IRV is an idea that is ripening in the minds of concerned voters, just as is the concept of real campaign finance reform...that McCain/Feingold fiasco is a joke, sadly.
The real problem with both concepts above is the stranglehold both parties have on the process. They will certainly have to be pried from their monopoly positions. This is yet another reason for real progressives to vote third party, only with the increasing numbers of voters who desert the Duopoly will come the leverage to effect change.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The bailout is beyond comprehension and disheartening.
Truer words were never spoken Dennis. Urge Americans to vote for ANYONE excpet the Democrats and Republicans this November as your own party has been complicit in the theft of the public treasury.
Too late, Space Cadet.
There are few ways for this government to get out of this mess. But, the easiest and most profitable is to start a new and bigger war, maybe with Iran.
Have a nice day.
Why can't we just forgive all the debt and give the money to the people?
Are they, we, EVER gonna pay it all back? The mortgage and credit card companies don't want us to pay it back. They make more money when people don't pay it back and when they lend money to people who are in over their heads.
All debt must die. Domestic debt, third world debt, all of it. Dismantle all the debt companies, Freddie Mac to Cash My Check A Week Early (you know the places I speak of, the ones you never see in the posh areas), all of 'em. Debt does nothing but smash self-sufficiency and feed poverty. End it.
Btw, Dennis is the guy I wrote in during the Dem primaries, and I am reminded of why.
Yes, once again, we've been had. It feels like the whole week was a huge charade. Passing the bill, any bill, was made to seem the highest of priorities. We were going to turn into a pumpkin if it wasn't passed by the "stroke of midnight." When the final bill grew to 400+ pages, stuffed with earmarks and larded with pork, I saw clearly that the exercise was no emergency in the sense that the average American was going to experience an immediate dire catastrophe. (In fact, how better to trivialize the legislation than to load it up with such unrelated and outrageous baggage?) Oh, we'll be experiencing a catastrophe alright, but it will build slowly and in the meantime the speculators and shysters who ran the financial markets into the ground will be stuffing their pockets with risk proofed taxpayer provided bonuses. There was no imminent collapse, they just stampeded the horses. And the dopes (and crooks) in congress just ran over the cliff and took the rest of us with them. Both senators from my state betrayed their constituents, voting to pass the bill. Both of our congressional representative voted against it. I will repeat this fact to any voters whom I have the opportunity to discuss this with.
My representative is one of the 63 Democrats who voted no to this travesty. He voted no both times, and if I have anything to say about it he will be my representative for years to come. I was so proud of him!
Right now, I'm just trying to decide if I want to vote for Nader (who is on the ballot in my state) or write in Dennis.
Some of those who voted No were likely given permission to do so in order for them to be relected, since they play ball on other issues, and the outcome of the vote is known before they vote.
Only use the Yes vote as a single criteria to vote against the congressmen. Check out the voting record of your congressmen who voted No before deciding to vote for them.
Tax revolt! Maybe we should have a little Boston Tea Party of our own? Lets go to Washington and gather up all the Congress Critters that voted yes on this bill and throw them in the potomac.
Then,we can head off to Wallstreet and use our imaginations.
What do you think?
Tax revolt! Maybe we should have a little Boston Tea Party of our own? Lets go to Washington and gather up all the Congress Critters that voted yes on this bill and throw them in the potomac.
Then,we can head off to Wallstreet and use our imaginations.
What do you think?