Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiShould Henry 'The Fox' Paulson Guard the Henhouse?
On Tuesday, October 7, a group
of CODEPINK pranksters pranced in front of the New York Stock Exchange.
One, wearing an oversized papier maché head of Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson, grabbed at the purses of the "chickens." "Give me your
money; give me your money," he cried. "You might need a new house,
but my buddies and I need new yachts." Passersby, reading the
sign "Henry ‘The Fox' Paulson' in the People's Henhouse,"
heartily agreed. 
Congress thought otherwise, entrusting Paulson -- the former CEO of Goldman Sachs -- with $700 billion of the people's money. On October 3, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, smiling ear to ear, congratulated Congress for passing a bill that gave Secretary Paulson unprecedented control over our nation's economic future. An hour later, President Bush and Secretary Paulson appeared on the steps of the Treasury Department signing the bill.
"This bailout bill does not deal with the absurdity of the fox guarding the henhouse," Senator Bernie Sanders decried on the Senate floor. But during the post-bailout hearings held by the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Dennis Kucinich was the lone voice raising questions about Paulson's performance and his obvious conflict of interest.
Kucinich asked the witnesses from AIG and Lehman Brothers why one company -- AIG -- was bailed out by the Treasury Secretary while Lehman Brothers was allowed to go under. AIG owed Goldman Sachs $20 billion, so their bailout meant that Paulson's buddies at Goldman Sachs would get repaid in full. Goldman Sachs also gained a competitive advantage from the bankruptcy of its rival Lehman Brothers. One would think that this maneuver alone, which happened BEFORE the $700 billion taxpayer bailout, would have immediately raised hackles in Congress and disqualified Paulson as economic czar.
To see the absurdity of Paulson in charge of the crisis, Congress need only have looked at Paulson's past. On the very day that Congress passed the bailout, The New York Times published a shocking story about how the SEC was lobbied in 2004 by the nation's five largest investment banks to change a regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption unshackled billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments, and led to the unraveling of the financial sector. Among the five banks leading the charge to change the rule was Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry Paulson. Translation: Paulson was one of the architects of the crisis!
Paulson also benefited personally from the casino economy he helped engineer. After creating billions of dollars in bizarre financial products that are now nearly worthless, he left Goldman Sachs with a personal fortune of over $700 million.
"It is remarkable that Congress would be willing to give Secretary Paulson such enormous power in running this bailout given his advocacy of rule changes that played such an important role in this financial disaster, and the extent to which he personally profited from these changes," said Dean Baker, an economist who was one of the first in the country to sound the alarm that the housing bubble was about to burst. "This would be like giving the bank robber who cleaned out the vaults the opportunity to set the bank's finances in order -- and letting him keep the loot."
Paulson's job performance as Treasury Secretary since July 2006 should be enough to have him fired, as Paulson fiddled while our economy slowly burned. When sub-prime mortgage losses set off a domino effect in mid-2007, Paulson insisted that troubles in the mortgage market were not likely to spread throughout the economy. In a Jim Lehrer interview in May 2007, he stated, "We're fortunate that we have a diverse, healthy economy" and insisted the housing problem was contained. A year later, he told the Wall Street Journal, "The worst is likely to be behind us," and stated on CNBC: "Our long-term fundamentals in this economy are strong, and this is a strong, competitive economy." As Cong. DeFazio stated, "This guy has been consistently wrong and out of touch or he's been lying to Congress and the American people about how sound our fundamentals are."
When in September we found ourselves in the midst of a full-blown crisis, Paulson's response was to blackmail Congress. With the proverbial gun to their heads, members of Congress were asked to hand Paulson $700 billion -- immediately -- on the basis of a three-page proposal and with no oversight, no Congressional or Judicial review and no accountability! Where did that $700 billion figure come from? "It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com. "We just wanted to choose a really large number." Cong. Brad Sherman called Paulson's proposed legislation an "awe-striking, mind-boggling power grab" designed with only Wall Street in mind.
Instead of tossing out Paulson and his plan in favor of a solution for Main Street, Congress passed a bill giving Paulson enormous power to decide which companies will be bailed out and which will go under. "A plan that relies on the former chairman of Goldman Sachs disbursing hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street is a terrible concept and inevitably will lead to crony capitalism and the appearance of -- if not the actual existence of -- corruption," said Newt Gingrich, who called on President Bush to fire Paulson.
The people's ire over the Wall Street bailout almost derailed the entire plan, but the bankers prevailed. Paulson's plan, however, has not calmed the markets and shouldn't mute the public outcry. Join us in demanding that the Fox stop raiding the henhouse. Join us in insisting that Paulson must go! (go to www.paulsonmustgo).
49 Comments so far
Show AllSo the splurge was success?
"You cannot solve any problem with the same mind that created it" -Albert Einstein
Despite the fact that the GOP make no bones about their being strongly in favor of bigger government even more than the Democrats, my state will still blindly support the GOP and still believe that the GOP is for smaller government. Sad !
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
This comment doesn't make sense. More Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout. Far more.
And Barack Obama, the faux change agent, signed on to, and will be restricted by, business as usual.
There ain't gonna be any improvement over this crappy plan, either. The time to counter shock capitalism was last week when Congress had Wall Street by the balls. Congress blinked.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
When was Obama ever for single-payer? Certainly not since he's been in the Senate, that I'm aware of.
Whenever I see Paulson for some reason I am reminded of Lurch.
Obviously the man is a fool, a ditherer, a failure, just like many American politicians, even Presidents. Americans are experts at electing or appointing such mediocre people although the reasons they do are unclear to non-Americans.
But the more important issue is: why aren't Americans protesting such ineptitude? Why aren't they out on the streets, marching, protesting, demanding change as their country slides into obscurity? What depths have to be reached before the penny drops, before they realize they've been conned, that only a select handful achieve The American Dream?
They need a reality check. My blog provides it.
www.dangerouscreation.com
Stop and Think about when you are at work and a new position opens up, one that maybe most people don't really want, and some slob at work says "That's the job for me". You don't want it, so you say, "yeah, he's the best person for the job". Well, that's the position most people with any real smarts say about the Presidency. We are all smart enough to know we don't want the job. So we willingly vote for the boobs who do. Anyone with any REAL intelligence knows it's a no-win job, battling the house and congress, being advised by people who just want to brag they "advise the President of the USA". Maybe it's time for a change, but we won't see it because who ever wins still has to deal with the Senators and Congressmen.
It seems to me that $700 billion would be a great start for a new PeoplesBankAndTrust. Open internet branches and eventually local physical branches starting with failed banks and let people transfer their savings from their current banks to the PeoplesBankAndTrust. It would have plenty of money to loan and would not create 'risky' or 'creative' products. Put Bernie Sanders on the board.
CODEPINK Ladies were in the the oversight hearings that took place a few days after the BAILOUT VOTE-Go figure why these heaings took place POST Bailout?We were also out in the streets protesting the Treasury Dept & on Capitol Hill for 2 weeks before the VOTE -putting pressure on the corporate owned Congress!
We wonder when the people impacted most will join us in the streets to Protest the white collar greedy criminals that continue to degrade our economy.
Wake Up America the Bush Regime is leaving a big mess and you & I will be the ones to pick up the pieces somehow someway someday!!
Come on out of your comfort zone to Speak up Speak Out involve yourself!!
how bad does it need to get before you robots become involved!
WWW.HANKMUSTGO.COM
Fire Hank!
Code Pink has been at this for weeks! Surely you know that.
Someone buy me some transport to NYC--I will be there in a heartbeat!
snydly
DRAFT RALPH NADER TO ADMINISTER THE BAILOUT PROGRAM.
SERIOUSLY. WHO ELSE KNOWS AS MUCH ABOUT CORPORATE SHENANIGANS AS HE?
Great piece Medea, thanks! Also I've noticed corporate news talking heads & economists (Paul Krugman comes to mind) out in full force assuring us all that the Bush/Cheney administration has had nothing to do with this economic mess...liars all!
from the article -
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10495
They had help. In recent testimony under oath by Eric Dinallo, the Superintendent of the New York Insurance Department at the AIG Bailout Oversight Hearing, into the AIG rescue by Paulson, Dinallo testified that funding cutbacks in recent years directed by the Bush-Cheney Administration had reduced the responsible department that should regulate or watch over the $80 trillions in Asset Backed Securities (ABS), which included the toxic sub-prime and Alt-A mortgage securities and much more. The Bush Administration took the staff from more than one hundred people down to one---yes that was not a typo. One as in ‘uno.’
Can you please tell me where I coul find any articles as to how Krugman and others, do not think Bush et al. is at fault for the economic hell? Thanks.
Wow--good link! Scary stuff.
By "et al." I presume you mean the majority of federal politicians from both parties, for roughly the last 20 years?
Excellent link to the article on Global Research.ca. IT has always been my feeling that this crisis was manufactured. Paulson was just too much an insider to be trusted as an impartial advocate for a sound banking system.
The Robber barons at the turn of the century used the same techniques to drive others under and take over thier business.
actually I think it was cable news - I think maybe the Rachel Maddow show-which is disappointing - I do not fault the Rachel Maddow show however, Krugman did say the Bush administration could not be blamed for this
to further clarify, Krugman said it was his opinion that the Bush administration was not to blame
That IS disappointing! His book will be on a back shelf tonight....
I agree that both parties are to blame. But, this supply side murder was originally advanced by Reagan, and carried forth by everyone after.
I am old enough to remember before Reagan--the financial landscape has changed drastically! (credit, credit cards rates, mortgages, securities, the definition of "bank", the push of the middle class into the stock mkt. by defunding social welfare prog and institutiotn IRAs and 401ks.)
Krugman's point is correct. Bush may be a war-criminal who must face justice someday soon, but he has had relatively little to do with the deregulation behind this crisis. The presidential administration most associated with that would be Clinton, followed by Reagan.
.During the recent Presidential debate both candidates were asked to name candidates for this position. Both declined to state them. Not that I blame them of course, the vetting process et al...but I would bet my shirt that it will be a deregulation guy no matter who wins the race.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I'll take that bet. I've got about a buck left in my retirement account, OK for a buck? At least I'd enjoy seeing that one go if I lose.
.You're on Mr. More...One internet buck on the appointment. It wont be Buffet of course. He wouldnt take the job, it would cost him too much money.
I personally like that guy. He came out against the Bush tax breaks for himself, at the time he noted that his personal secretary now paid more in taxes than he did, and said it wasnt fair at all. He donates more money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation than do Bill and Melinda...
One deregulation appointment, coming to a bank or lending institution near you.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
One deregulation appointment, coming to a bank or lending institution near you.
Its a bet!
I thought that they "agreed again"--didnt McCain name Warren Buffett, and , then obama seconded it?
.They were both kidding of course...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
To answer the title question in one word....NO.
"A plan that relies on the former chairman of Goldman Sachs disbursing hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street is a terrible concept and inevitably will lead to crony capitalism and the appearance of -- if not the actual existence of -- corruption," said Newt Gingrich, who called on President Bush to fire Paulson.
- It's a measure of the insanity of our situation, that we have Medea Benjamin approvingly quoting Newt Gingrich -- & that Gingrich is EXACTLY RIGHT, while most Democrats in Washington fell all over themselves in their rush to hand Paulson the keys to the Treasury.
Got that, boys & girls? Newt Gingrich is right about this, while Sen. Obama twisted the arms of wavering Democrats last Friday, pressing them to vote for Paulson's plan.
Exactly right, RichM!
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that nowhere in the above article does Medea Benjamin mention the fact that Barack Obama has indicated that, if elected, he may retain Henry Paulson in an Obama administration.
The following is an excerpt from a September 22, 2008 article in the New York Times by Jackie Calmes, entitled “In Crisis, Paulson’s Power Is Magnified” --
“Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, does not rule out retaining Mr. Paulson, a Republican. The two have spoken almost daily since Treasury put the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into government conservatorships two weeks ago, and Mr. Obama speaks highly of Mr. Paulson.
“’Getting a new person to start juggling those balls is going to be tricky,’ Mr. Obama said in an interview aboard his campaign plane Saturday. ‘Regardless of who wins the election, the issue of transition to the next administration is going to be very important. And it’s going to have to be executed with a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation.’” Click here for the entire article -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22treasury.html?pagewanted=print
Is Ms. Benjamin perhaps unaware that Barack Obama has expressed the idea of retaining Henry Paulson in an Obama administration? … Or did this just “slip her mind”? ... Slip her mind because she is either a DPAer (a Democratic Party Apologist); and/or a “vote-for-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils” advocate.
Barack Obama is a corporatist-candidate. Like John McCain, he is part of the Democratic/Republican duopoly – a duopoly that serves as the political mouthpiece for the economic elite.
As such, the Democratic/Republican duopoly doesn’t speak for the “democratic-many,” it speaks, instead, for the “oligarchic-few.”
Is Ms. Benjamin unaware of this? Does she perhaps suffer from cognitive dissonance? … Meaning: she, quite rightly, criticizes Henry Paulson, but she doesn’t mention Obama’s expressed fondness for “the work” Paulson has been done for the Bush crime family -- er, I mean, the Bush administration.
(Continued)
Notice in the above New York Times excerpt Obama’s reference to “a spirit of bipartisanship.” … To see just how this “spirit of bipartisanship” plays itself out, let’s go back to just before the November 2002 Congressional elections …
You’ll recall that just before the November 2002 Congressional elections, there were worldwide protests against the United States invading Iraq. Millions of people, the world over, were protesting, taking to the streets in the hopes that their collective voices would stop the US invading/raping Iraq.
Enter the Democratic Party. …
Do you remember the Democratic leadership telling the American public just before they went to the polls in November 2002 that those elections would not be about whether the US should or should not invade Iraq? … That election, they told us, would be about “other issues.”
Remember the Democratic leadership posing in front of Congress, hand in hand with the Republican leadership, vowing their *bipartisan* support of US foreign policy. (There they all were Dick Gephardt, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden, et al.)
Bipartisanship. … It sounds very statesmanlike, but all bipartisanship means is -- No matter how important the issue, even if it’s a matter of war or peace – in fact, *especially* if it’s a matter of war or peace – the general public has no fundamental say in what we, the Democratic-Republican duopoly, the agents of the ruling class, decide.
And so the invasion of Iraq was not something the public had any say about. The invasion of Iraq was a done-deal; a bipartisan (read: *oligarchic*) decision.
In fact, have you noticed that the Democratic stands in unity with the Republican Party on virtually every foreign policy issue? … On Iraq, on Iran, on Pakistan, on Afghanistan. … And the millions of people around the world (you know, those people who actually suffer and die because of wars and “global economics”) be damned.
The truth is, the Democratic/Republican duopoly will never allow a national election to be a referendum on war or peace. … And for one simple reason. … Because they know that if given the chance to express their feelings about war and peace at the polls, the general public will choose peace every time.
Many of you are familiar with the quote by fascist warlord Herman Goering, which begins with the words "Why of course the people don't want war.” Click here for the entire quote -- http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Hermann.Goering.Quote.65D2
It’s *at the polls* that the ruling class most fears the democratic-millions. It’s there that the democratic-many -- the democratic-*millions* -- can be quickly and non-violently defeated the oligarchic class, turn them out of power. … And the oligarchic class knows it.
But they can’t do this by continuously voting for candidates offered up by the Democratic/Republican duopoly. By continuously voting for “the lesser of the two evils.” To where in the past 40 years the political consensus has move dramatically to the right. To where Richard Nixon signed more progressively legislation in the 1970s than Bill Clinton did in the 1990s.
And so it is at election-time that the oligarchy is most fearful, most vulnerable. They have to do an almost unbelievable job of propagandizing. They have to brainwash the overwhelming majority of voters to vote for the Democratic/Republican duopoly, i.e., to vote against their best interests.
Thus, the duopoly is very careful as to what “issues” a given election can be about – e.g., the 2002 Congressional election being about, we were told, “other issues,” not the invasion of Iraq.
And so invading Iraq was a bipartisan, oligarchic decision -- as is the continued prosecution of that criminal war. … Note: The Iraqi death-toll is now over 1,000,000. See the following -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768
(Continued)
So when Obama says in the above New York Times article that the transition to an Obama administration should be “executed with a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation,” what he’s saying is that the general public has no real voice in issues that matter. Bipartisanship rules.
The ruling class’ attitude toward the democratic-many is quite simple. … They just say no.
And because an election can’t be about crucial, meaningful issues, issues that affect the felt-lives of millions of people, not just in America but around the world. Because this must never be allowed to happen, elections, especially presidential elections, and especially in a television news-cycle that’s 24/7, the issues have to be: where’s that American flag lapel-pin Obama should be wearing? …
And, hey, what about that hockey mom, Sarah Palin! … And, did you notice, Joe Biden didn’t make contact with the moderator of the debates. Looks like he’ll drop in the polls because of it.
Meanwhile, important decisions -- like, the decision to invade Iraq, which is costing American taxpayers $15 billion a *month* … and the decision to fund the Pentagon, the Pentagon’s current budget, now at $550 billion a year … and the decision to bail out the crooks and incompetents on Wall Street, which is costing the American taxpayers $850 billion – those are all things that have “bipartisan” support. … Bipartisan, oligarchic support. … Paid for with YOUR money!
Oh, the Democrats threw the public a few crumbs after their stunning victory in 2006. … They raised the minimum wage, along with a few other relatively minor things. But did they stop the War, as millions of people who voted for them hoped they would? … No. … Did they impeach Bush, as millions of people who voted for them hoped they would? No.
And, lo and behold (as that loyal American, Private Gomer Pyle, might say: “Surpise! Surprise!”), lo and behold, who has Barack Obama indicated that he might retain in an Obama administration? … Henry Paulson … fellow-corporatist.
Bipartisanship at its crookedest – er, I mean, its finest.
After the bailout vote was over, after the bipartisan heist was pulled off, the Republicans and Democrats who supported the bill couldn’t rush to the microphones fast enough so as to dutifully inform the American public that what they had just done was the height, the absolute pinnacle of governmental statesmanship!
Oh, we were told, the long hours they worked! Oh, we were told (by them) the way they struggled with their consciences!
As my stuttering friend Bubba might say: “Bubba-Bubba-Bubba-Bubba -- BULLSHIT!
(Continued)
The last I looked before the Bill passed, only 33% of the American public were in favor of it. And most of those people, no doubt, only supported the bill because they fell for the bipartisan bullshit spewing from both sides of the aisle.
The oligarchy couldn’t be clearer in their message -- screw the public; all we want is your tax money.
Barack Obama and Henry Paulson. … Comrades in arms. … The war being against the poor and the middle class.
Quoting from a recent article by Bill Van Auken, entitled, “Obama’s Response to Financial Meltdown: Deception and Subservience to Wall Street” --
“The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions, listed Goldman Sachs as the top source of campaign funds for the Obama campaign. The watchdog group added that Wall Street’s stake in the Democratic candidate is probably even larger. “Since his campaign has ignored repeated requests... to disclose his bundlers’ employers and occupations,” it pointed out, “these figures are probably undercounts.”
“In addition to Wall Street, the Obama campaign has raised some $13.4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector and $2 million from the commercial banks, again outstripping McCain.
“Given this financial banking, Obama’s posturing as a champion “Main Street” and the scourge of “special interests” is just as absurd as McCain’s vow to fight “greed” on Wall Street.
“Equally dishonest is the Democratic candidate’s repeated assertion that the present crisis is the outcome of policies pursued simply over the past eight years. Conveniently ignored is the fact that the frontal assault on the working class that lay the foundations for the present economic setup in America was initiated under the Democratic Carter administration 30 years ago and that the most sweeping deregulation of the financial markets was carried out under the Democrat Clinton.” Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s19.shtml
Oh, and by the way, Barack Obama is also thinking about keeping Robert Gates on should he be elected. … You know, Robert Gates, George Bush’s Secretary of Defense.
In a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article Richard Danzig quotes Obama's top military adviser as saying: "My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
The "Times of London" article goes on to say:
"Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents. ...
"Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be 'responsible' in handling Iraq -- rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out -- to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance." Click here for the entire article -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4232070.ece
(Continued)
Also, like John McCain, Obama wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. … In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama proposed sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
Interestingly enough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, also feel that there are an insufficient number of troops in Afghanistan. And guess how many additional troops they recommend be deployed in Afghanistan -- the same number as Barack Obama, 10,000.
Note: What did George Bush do *the day after* Obama's aforementioned “New York Time” op-ed piece? In a White House press conference, Bush indicated that the US and its NATO allies were already initiating a “surge” in Afghanistan.
So, hey, why not retain Bush appointees Robert Gates and Henry Paulson in an Obama administration? … They agree on so much! … They’re soul mates, kindred spirits!
They’re all multi-millionaire corporatists; surely they have a lot of scheming -- err, I mean, “planning” -- they can talk about.
(Continued)
And how about Obama recently appointing Josh Furman, a former Clinton administration official, as his chief economic advisor. See "Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama's Economic Policy" -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/
In 2005, Furman published a 16-page paper titled, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story." … Get the picture? … In short, Josh Furman, Barack Obama's chief economic advisor, believes that Walmart's is good for America.
“But wait a second,” you say, “didn’t Obama criticize Wal-Mart’s during the primaries? Didn’t Obama, during the primaries, criticize Hillary Clinton for serving on Wal-Mart’s board of directors for six years?”
Gee, I guess he did. .. But now, lurching to the right as he did after he captured the nomination, he goes and appoints yet another fellow-corporatist as his chief economic advisor -- the Wal-Mart-loving Josh Furman.
(Continued)
You know, all this lying bullshit Barack Obama is spewing, reminds me of “Godfather II” and the immortal words of that great American philosopher, Frankie Pentangeli. I quote, verbatim, from the script …
CHAIRMAN
“We have a sworn affidavit -- we have it -- your sworn affidavit that you murdered on the orders of Michael Corleone. Do you deny that confession, and do you realize what will happen as a result of your denial.”
PENTANGELI
“Look the FBI guys promised me a deal. So I made up a lot of stuff about Michael Corleone 'cause that's what they wanted -- but it was all lies -- uh -- everything. And I kept saying -- Michael Corleone did this and Michael Corleone did that -- .uh -- so I said yea sure, why not.”
Now, tell me -- is there any difference between Frankie Pentangeli’s philosophy (“So I made up a lot of stuff, but it was all lies.”) and that of the major party candidates and their corporate sponsors, the latter’s handiwork there to witness 24/7 on teevee and radio -- one lying commercial after another, one lying food-fight (Crossfire!) debate after another?
And so we hear, days before the Election (what a coincidence) – we hear the major networks (also members-in-good-standing of the oligarchic-few) dutifully report that, lo and behold (“Surprise! Surprise!”) John MCain not only likes and supports unions, he *always* liked and supported unions! (“Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania was always at war with Eastasia.”)
And what about Barack Obama outrageously claiming that the financial meltdown will not adversely affect his proposal for increasing government spending on education. … Is he kidding?!!! … Then again, if the government prints enough money, it sure can increase its budget for education. Trouble is, inflation will be so devastating that crayons will cost around twenty-eight thousand dollars a box.
But, you now, now that I think of it, there is one big difference between the gangster Frankie Pentangeli and the gangsters in the oligarchic class. ... At least Frankie “Five Angels” had the decency to come clean. … When the jig was up, at least he had the decency to tell the truth. (“But it was all lies.”) …
Have you heard such truth-telling from any mainstream politicians, or their Sicilian messenger boys minatream media?
And the American public keeps buying the lies.
That being the case, why should the oligarchic-few stop? They have succeeded, beyond their wildest dreams, in “shifting wealth upwards” in the past 40 years – from the poor and the middle class into the pockets of the rich. So why should they stop now?
The rich will keep on getting super-rich, as Ralph Nader puts it, “on the backs of the masses,” unless and until a viable third party movement is established in the United States.
Other countries have strong, viable third party movements, as well as coalition governments that include third party candidates. Why not the United States?
.I would respectfully suggest that you submit some of these excellent works for publishing as an article, here if possible, I am certain that they woudl stimulate much dialogue and "haiku-like" mind expansion.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Rich, you forgot its not Henry, its his 35 year old appointee (Goldman Sachs originally) that will pass out the bucks. Mr. Kash and Karry.
.at a modest stipend of one million/month...sounds fair to me.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
CD always puts Media's name in pink. Cute.
The empire is falling. Let it burn with the Chicago School of Economics.
Up until the last couple of weeks, Paulson's body language had puzzled me. Alternately giving the impression of a cornered vampire seeking an escape window and a contrite schoolboy blaming everyone but himself in a bid to avoid corporal punishment, who is he the most afraid of, or for? His old masters at Goldman Sachs, the American people? Or his personal portfolio?
I am guessing that his list of priorities would be something like this:
(1) personal portfolio;
(2) Goldman Sachs;
(3) fellow criminal gang members in Bush administration;
(4) fellow bankers and financial services crooks;
...
...
(897) American people.
(898) God
(99999+) Satan
It's even funnier than that!
The Bank Robber Reward Act of 2008 also establishes a Federal Oversight Board whose five members include... wait for it...
HANK F**KING PAULSON!
That's right, kids - Hank is not only in charge of the "henhouse," he's also tasked with overseeing himself!!!
Good thing he "hired" one of his inexperienced, former Goldman trainees to help him spend the trillion he just stole, or we'd really be completely shit out of luck... and money... and hope...
there is no problem with the fox guarding the henhouse, provided your goal is nor more hens, and one fat fox.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
We go with the Treasury Secretary we got. Henry lead us to the promised land: The New New Deal. Dethrone Milton Friedman/Arnold Greenspan (Markets work;governments don't), install John Maynard Keynes/FDR (they helped save capitalism the last time).
Memo to Obama: Drop Robert Rubin and Larry Summers and the rest of the free market deregulators on your team.
Just like Nixon who found peace with China, Paulson can lead to us to a caring socialism/capitalism. It's possible: we could become a loving Scandinavian country.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
This is a joke, right?
On Bill Maher, after those pepople died in the coal mines, and we saw that basterd in charge of "regulating" then, was an owner, a conservative woman on his show said, in reply, to Maher';s, "why hire someone who has a conflict of interest", she says, "Well, cause they have knowledge of the subject.". Maher says, "Yes, In the way taht a fox has "knowledge " of hens".
Considering that legislators were threatened with martial law if they did not pass the bailout, we see more of totalitarian Bush & Co. tightening the noose.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Representatives-Were-Threa-by-Patrick-Henningsen-081004-301.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-Banker-s-Trick-Americ-by-Patrick-Henningsen-081003-514.html
Why not check out the "link embedded in your link" (??lol), that , basically said, why did congress fall for it? It sounds like more rationalizing , to me.
It doesnt reqally say anythnig about the Senate
Of course Paulson should guard the henhouse. What is wrong with you....don't you know who rules America???