Jan 14, 2009
Why in the world should we be giving the banks another $350 billion?
They caused this financial crisis in the first place.
Then Bush and Paulson just threw billions of dollars at them.
Bush and Paulson didn't demand a voting share of these banks.
And the banks weren't required to lend to businesses, though that was the main rationale for the bailout.
Nor were the banks required to refinance mortgages and go easy on foreclosures, though this is what triggered the crisis.
Basically, the banks weren't required to do anything accept open their wallets.
And afterward, they didn't even have to tell us, the taxpayers, what they did with the money, which was essentially to hoard it.
Now they deserve $350 billion more?
You've got to be kidding.
But that's what Bush is saying. And he formally asked Congress to OK this second disbursement.
The odd thing is that Obama urged Bush to do so.
Yeah, Obama says he'll impose a lot more stringent requirements on what the banks do with that money, but if it's not in the legislation, and the banks get the money anyway, what leverage will he have?
On top of that, we could use this $350 billion in much wiser and more progressive ways-by helping people stay in their homes, for instance.
"We all have a huge stake in stopping this heist," as Naomi Klein told me a couple of months ago.
Congress shouldn't be dispensing the $350 billion.
It should be saying, "Stop, thief!"
© 2023 The Progressive
Matt Rothschild
Matt Rothschild is the executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Prior to joining the Democracy Campaign at the start of 2015, Matt worked at The Progressive Magazine for 32 years. For most of those, he was the editor and publisher of The Progressive.
Why in the world should we be giving the banks another $350 billion?
They caused this financial crisis in the first place.
Then Bush and Paulson just threw billions of dollars at them.
Bush and Paulson didn't demand a voting share of these banks.
And the banks weren't required to lend to businesses, though that was the main rationale for the bailout.
Nor were the banks required to refinance mortgages and go easy on foreclosures, though this is what triggered the crisis.
Basically, the banks weren't required to do anything accept open their wallets.
And afterward, they didn't even have to tell us, the taxpayers, what they did with the money, which was essentially to hoard it.
Now they deserve $350 billion more?
You've got to be kidding.
But that's what Bush is saying. And he formally asked Congress to OK this second disbursement.
The odd thing is that Obama urged Bush to do so.
Yeah, Obama says he'll impose a lot more stringent requirements on what the banks do with that money, but if it's not in the legislation, and the banks get the money anyway, what leverage will he have?
On top of that, we could use this $350 billion in much wiser and more progressive ways-by helping people stay in their homes, for instance.
"We all have a huge stake in stopping this heist," as Naomi Klein told me a couple of months ago.
Congress shouldn't be dispensing the $350 billion.
It should be saying, "Stop, thief!"
Matt Rothschild
Matt Rothschild is the executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Prior to joining the Democracy Campaign at the start of 2015, Matt worked at The Progressive Magazine for 32 years. For most of those, he was the editor and publisher of The Progressive.
Why in the world should we be giving the banks another $350 billion?
They caused this financial crisis in the first place.
Then Bush and Paulson just threw billions of dollars at them.
Bush and Paulson didn't demand a voting share of these banks.
And the banks weren't required to lend to businesses, though that was the main rationale for the bailout.
Nor were the banks required to refinance mortgages and go easy on foreclosures, though this is what triggered the crisis.
Basically, the banks weren't required to do anything accept open their wallets.
And afterward, they didn't even have to tell us, the taxpayers, what they did with the money, which was essentially to hoard it.
Now they deserve $350 billion more?
You've got to be kidding.
But that's what Bush is saying. And he formally asked Congress to OK this second disbursement.
The odd thing is that Obama urged Bush to do so.
Yeah, Obama says he'll impose a lot more stringent requirements on what the banks do with that money, but if it's not in the legislation, and the banks get the money anyway, what leverage will he have?
On top of that, we could use this $350 billion in much wiser and more progressive ways-by helping people stay in their homes, for instance.
"We all have a huge stake in stopping this heist," as Naomi Klein told me a couple of months ago.
Congress shouldn't be dispensing the $350 billion.
It should be saying, "Stop, thief!"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.