Over the last 30 years the US had a class war, and the middle class lost almost every battle. Congress’s refusal yesterday to spend over $700 billion bailing out the nation’s richest people did not confirm that the US was a banana republic, as Paul Krugman would have us believe, where the top 1% of the population steals from the poor and the small middle class to take for themselves.
On the contrary, the bailout’s failure signals that America rejected the opportunity to solidify its role as the world’s largest plutocracy — a country run by the rich for the rich. This was the most significant victory against US plutocracy in 30 years.
The US has been trending towards plutocracy for over three decades. From being the Western nation with the most social mobility, America went to being the country with the least. From having the least inequality in the Western world it went to the most. The amount of money the rich had ballooned to Gilded Age levels and the middle class didn’t get a single raise. Families went from being able to support themselves with one wage earner to needing two.
There has never been a better time to be rich in America. In the last decades the truly rich have gone from merely flying first class to owning their own jets. They’ve gone from earning 20 or 30 times what a normal employee earns to taking home tens of millions of dollars every single year—even when they are running the company, and the country, into bankruptcy.
Congress after Congress, Administration after Administration systematically stripped rules and regulations from the financial system to make more and more leverage and thus more and more profits possible. Tax levels on the rich collapsed and unearned income was taxed at lower and lower rates, while those who earned their money by the sweat of their brow instead of buying securities were taxed much more.
In other words a huge amount of money was very deliberately transfered by government from the working class to the rich. As Jesse Wendel points out, this transfer of wealth only accelerated in the Bush years, where most of the debt run up was for tax cuts for the rich, and most of the rest was for a war which certainly didn’t benefit ordinary Americans, but did enrich companies like Halliburton—that just coincidentally had connections at the highest political levels.
The US has been run, for over 30 years, for the benefit of the rich. The financial sector, which once accounted for about 10% of the economy’s profits, burgeoned to about 40% based on loose money, deregulation and so-called "free" trade—which was no such thing. These profits, as Kevin Phillips among others has explained at length, were chimerical, illusionary, a sign of America’s weakness and not strength.
The Paulson bill was to be the capstone. While billed as 700 billion it actually allowed much money to be spent than even that. If it had been passed, the US government would have effectively promised to take on all the losses of the financial sector and to bail out the rich on the back of the poor and middle classes. It was to be the final act in the descent to American Plutocracy: the capstone law which made it formal "the rich can never lose, only the middle class. The rich are the most important people in this economy and must be protected at any cost to anyone else."
The markets are now panicking, and we are being told the end of ages are coming. And there’s some truth to that: if Congress holds firm on this and then goes on to write and pass a bill which takes care of Main Street rather than Wall Street, then the end of an age is indeed happening; since the financial sector had become so large, so parasitical on the real economy, the end of that age is going to hurt a ton. The US has spent decades offshoring and outsourcing jobs, not rebuilding infrastructure properly, ignoring education, not dealing with fundamental problems like energy supplies, letting its universities work for for short term corporate cash instead of long term gains, and so on. The real economy, in other words, has been under invested even as the financial economy has sucked up all the room. Financial companies promised 15% returns, normal companies were forced to try and do the same, but the reality is almost no company can deliver that without fraud, extremely risky business practices, or both.
As it happens those 15% returns were lies, they were not real. They were a result of fraud, leverage, booking future profits today and various accounting tricks. They sounded too good to be true and as with most such things, that’s because they weren’t true. They were lies.
But because they sounded true, money went into companies that "delivered" such returns instead of into the real economy and the result has been that the real economy, which most of the population lives in (as opposed to the Wall Street "economy" which gives itself bonuses equal to the raises of 80 million people) has stagnated and fallen behind.
Getting off the financial path, off the junkies fix of fake profits and loose money is going to hurt. Let no one tell you otherwise. Over the next few weeks and months we are going to hear a lot of screams that everything bad that happens (and bad things are going to happen) wouldn’t have happened if only the American Plutocracy Act (aka the bailout bill) had passed. As with withdrawal from a deadly addiction, this is true to an extent. Stop taking heroin and the withdrawal effects may make you wish you were dead, and claw for another hit to make them stop. But going back on the drug isn’t the solution to it nearly killing you.
Instead there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce the suffering and to have the US come out of this stronger than ever, with an economy that works for everyone and not just the rich.
But doing those things requires first a commitment to get off the smack, and to start operating a real economy again. The days of "15%" profits, and $50 million salaries need to end, because both were born of lies and delusional thinking and a system which produced paper profits and many billionaires, but no real raises for Americans for 30 years.
We can do this.
- The first step is to to take interim measures to stabilize the economy until a new president is inaugurated in January.
- The second step is to make sure that in January Congress and the new President take the necessary steps to restructure the economy.
The next administration can build a new, stronger economy for all Americans if it has sufficient political will to end the Plutocratic economy, to fix the mess the Plutocrats left behind, and to start making all Americans prosperous again.
Related posts:
- The Next Big Taxpayer Bailout? IMF Could Get Hundreds of Billions for European Banks
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Bruce Bartlett, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward
- Baucus’ Budget Impact is “Voodoo Savings” Achieved by Taxing the Middle Class
- Why Self-Regulation Doesn’t Work: Lenders Pursue Fees to Bolster Bottom Line
- The Max Tax: Baucus’ Plan Would Benefit Big Med and Shackle the Middle Class





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

No Bailout!!!
first?
Ahhgh! I shouldn’t have read first.
this is one incredible read Ian, excellent
I have always pointed out, these “tax cuts” are NOT “tax cuts” at all, they are the redistribution of middle class assets
the thing is, this redistribution is not to give wealth to the wealthy, they have more then they can ever spend, the purpose is to create a greater divide
they WANT a robber baron economy, they WANT the haves and the have nots.
that is their goal, it is the federalist mantra, it is the neo con’s mantra, it is the libertarian’s mantra
it is their need, they need to tower, they do not need to succeed, they need to exceed
Progressive caucus was up on CSPAN now offering their own proposal. It will be available in archive at cspan soon
Bring it on. I admit I am powerless in the situation. I’m ready to get off the junk. I think a lot of people get it and want out too. Fuck the rich.
and right after Enron. all that 2001 mea culpa talk about ‘debasing ourselves!’, ‘properly chagrined’ . . .
whatevah, these people are never, ever to be trusted on anything -
Words to live by.
I am thinking paradigm shift. Economic paradigm shift in that the whole economic structure has to change.
No one gets credit unless they are credit worthy.
We have to begin manufacturing something here, anything. The service based economy is a race to the bottom.
As a society we have to begin saving so we can fund our own credit needs and not go begging from China et al.
Sensible regulation is GOOD for the economy, environment, safety of our citizens etc.!
Government of the wealthiest 1%, by the wealthiest 1% and for the wealthiest 1% shall not perish! Huzzah!
Cheers,
We need more people like you, Ian!
Your clear vision and rational contextualization makes any problem – no matter how difficult – seem solvable – through collective understanding and action.
Thanks for all that you do!
Great Job, Ian. What a pity that Congress won’t have the guts to follow your advice.
Did Wall Street critters evolve from snakes?
Thanks, wobs. I’ve been trying to find if they have posted their plan, but haven’t seen it yet.
Why did the middle class allow this to happen? For the last 30 years the middle class was able to create the illusion of gains by plunging itself into debt. Real wages may have stagnated, but you could still get that new SUV or plasma TV by putting it on a credit card or using the equity of your house. So the creation of a society that sees debt (instead of savings) as “normal” allowed the business interests to squeeze the middle class and eliminate gains while they were temporarily insulated from feeling the impact. It also allowed them to vote their prejudices (Republican)over their pocketbooks (Democrat).
That insulating layer of debt is drawing to a close though, and middle class America may be forced to start voting its pocketbook again. Let’s hope so.
Ian–
May I plagiarize several paragraphs to send to my Congresscritters? (You write much more succinctly than I . . . but you have exactly expressed my concerns–most of which I’ve garnered from other of your excellent blogs.)
No, they haven’t but they gave extensive information about the thinking behind their proposal and it was very refreshing to hear clear, intelligent thought.
It all began with the soothing voice of a carnival barker named Reagan.
when reagan rescinded the fairness doctrine corporate america gained the right to saturate our airwaves with propaganda
that is where we are now
Here is the link for the archive (no up yet)
Funny you should mention that Ian. I once got an equity investment in my startup from a CEO of a NYSE listed firm who had been re-negotiating his corporate bonds with Wall Street. I’m pretty sure I closed the deal on investing in my company at dinner with the CEO the night before the pitch when I compared investment bankers to the nematodes (round worms with a parasitic lifestyle) our technology was aimed at controlling.
Breaking
SEC, FASB Likely to Resist Calls to Suspend Fair-Value Rules
Lehmann Brothers, AIG, and many others have to be apoplectic that this more sophisticated form of bailout didn’t happen earlier. Can they sue the SEC?
Can we/should we?? as liberals, stop the SEC from trying to make these rules?
Thanks for all your great work.
W:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls
digg
man on the street interview on wall street on msnbc. Contessa interviews a pharmaceutical trader (!) who says that the average american doesn’t have the financial literacy to understand why the bailout is necessary.
nice huh? I heard this literally right after seeing my elderly and diabetic neighbor explain to me that he is in his insurance “donut hole” of coverage, which means he was covered, now he’s not until a few more years and he’s covered again. He can get his medicine which cost $300/mo in the states for FAR LESS in Canada. Like for $7.
It’s all monopoly money.
Took business awhile, but finally they figured out how to do it. Weakened unions. Found out that they didn’t need to give large wage increases. Even the rising employment support to overall consumer spending sputtered out during the W years.
In other words, business has all the power unless labor is so scarce that corps have to bid workers away from each other (end of 1960s and for a couple of years during the 1990s; takes an unemployment rate at or below 4%). Even at low unemployment rates today I think corps would figure out how to push jobs to cheaper places rather than pay higher wages.
Since consumers are fundamentally insatiable, they went into debt to maintain spending gains. FRB underwrote this with loose monetary policy.
No obvious way to reverse this unless labor organizes.
Most of the time species evolve from lower orders, so if anything it would be the other way around.
Don’t forget that we in the middle class started investing our savings into stocks, thinking that portfolios only gain money. never lose.
One of the major group thinks that has evolved on wall street is the need to pump up the next quarters profits. Long term strategies be damned.
Jobs with Justice is having a national day of action with events and rallies in cities across the US…
http://www.jwj.org/bailout.html
I had never seen that before! That should be the next Obama ad, really and truly. esp. during these troubled times because it is so true. that is devastating to watch.
Propaganda is only believed by idiots. For everyone else it sounds just like what it really is…bullshit, no matter the source.
there is no political will for this, ian.
how many people were at the progressive caucus’ press conference this afternoon announcing their quite reasonable alternative (one they are working with disaffected republicans on)? about 7 i think? out of a caucus of about 70?
and that is our problem – as bad and as incompetent as the Rs have been, the D leadership has no intention of even constraining the plutocratic economy. did you know the extent of obama’s role in this mess? to push against bankruptcy reform. look at his advisors, look at his history. look at the congressional leadership. by waiting for january, you are advocating giving obama a blank check.
no blank checks. for anyone.
now, before the elections is when when have some power because they need our votes. after the elections it will be back to the only people with a vote are the people who can buy them
i’ll pull a bit from democracy now this morning (the whole thing is worth a listen) to give more background.
Actually, I believe the medication payment re-sets each calendar year and is based on the costs of the meds over the year. So, if your neighbor doesn’t go beyond the donut hole, it still re-sets in January back to zero.
I forget what the range is for the donut hole – something like from $2.5k to $7.5k annual cost but not sure of the actual figures.
1. The first step is to to take interim measures to stabilize the economy until a new president is inaugurated in January.
End the war thats our biggest nonessential expense force Bush to pay for his bailout at least partially with a tax increase. End all foreign aid to Pakistan who won’t let us get Ossama, or any country trying to get Nuclear technology like Saudi Arabia.
Most excellent, Ian.
I hope Obama is listening (as well as ALL the other dems) and that the American people are paying attention.
This is a critically important time for ‘understanding’ to soak in.
The total incompetence of the American Ruling Class is now clearly evident for all to see.
Unchecked greed, at the ‘top’, and the willingness of the Political Class to ‘accomodate’ the self-serving demands of “those too big to fail” for little or even no “regulation” of economic behavior at all has, rather predictably, brought us to this ‘point’ in time.
What is worse is that as a society we have allowed greed, naked and raw, to be cloaked in the trappings of ‘respect’, and have made clear the notion that not only is greed ‘good’, it is ‘virtuous’ as well; indeed greed is seen as being the prime requirement of ‘responsible’ citizenship.
Such allowances and notions are violently destructive of the ’social contract’ AND the consciouscness that ALL economic systems are ‘games’, human constructs, man-made, and not handed us by those other man-made constructs, various and sundry dieties …
What do people ‘believe’?
What do people fear?
What do people think?
Some will argue, from the point of ‘pragmatism’, that the Paulson ‘bailout’ was the best we could hope for because … well because that’s just how it is … and now (wringing polite little hands together and saying, “Oh dear! Oh dear! Whatever shall we dooooooo?”) we must face the prospect of far worse ‘plans’, because, just because the repubs will get everything they want or they will call the dems unpleasant things.
I appreciate your willingness to continue to stand for sanity and a BETTER
path, Ian, and value, more than words can convey, the consistent clarity and pithiness of your magnificent posts.
Thanks. I didn’t really get it. I just know it costs plenty more in the US for meds than anywhere else. Hmmm. wonder why.
o/t omg bugman on hardball talking about bailout. ew.
hmm seems Gwen Ifill has broken her ankle but still intends to moderate the debate on Thursday
Raven was asking about mark to market accounting earlier why all this talk about accounting when these jokers won’t let us see their books before we approve a bailout?
Something is fishy here.
gah! delay says capital gains tax and accounting rules are bad.
from democracy now!, this morning:
.
exactly exactly. I posted some questions/comments about mark to market on Rayne’s diary reminicing about Enron.
First time I remember seeing it, I think, was in Fahrenheit 911
oh, and my very “progressive” congressmember, jim mcgovern? he voted for the bailout.
i was told today, by both his dc and local office that was because he was convinced by some economists on sunday that the bailout was necessary. also tried to tell me that the final bill was so much better than the original.
that’s from one of the more progressive members of congress. someone who represents working class people.
Sometimes not ;-)
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet…..reitas.jpg
FWIW, mark to market, Dylan Ratigan is tearing into this in the first segment of today’s FASTMONEY. He’s stating that ‘PRICE TRANSPARENCY,’ is the key. It’s obvious from his comments that he thinks the SEC is trying to work against “price transparency” with these proposed changes in accounting rules/interpretations.
Good stuff, Selise. thanks for posting it.
something’s rotten on wall street all right. I cannot stand this stuff about banks and such begging for money but dictating the terms. ridiculous.
have you had a chance to look at fedupusa.org?
missing democracy now! link. sorry, i’ve been really bad about links lately.
Lone Ranger “We can do this”
Tonto “What you mean We, White Man”
The reasons the bill failed are yet to see the light of day, but I’m sure it wasn’t high ideals or even voter anger that cause some DINO’s and more Rethughs to vote no. It will be interesting how this plays out in the Senate, and I believe will be more indicative of Beltway thinking than reactionary House vote. I don’t see meaningful oversight, nor assistance for homeowners, because that’s not where the money or power lay.
But he’s the chimp a lot of people wanted to have a beer with…
no. thank you for the link.
ding ding ding.
I also suspect that the banks want to use the govt as a discount clearinghouse for toxic loans, hit reset, and the buyers get cleaned up paper at better prices.
Thanks for this timely post, Ian.
The problem with trying to implement what you saying here is that we are fighting against a conservative mindset and a conservative monopoly in regard to how economic ideas are actually phrased in the general discourse.
For example, McCain is out there saying that the current crisis is a fiscal crisis. In other words, the emphasis is on “balancing the budget” rather than “investing in the economy”.
Note that the attached link from “Economists for Obama” (above the item about McCain) talks about the tax cuts that everyone (95%) is supposed to get. Apparently that is the only way that politicians can get elected in this country.
I wish just once when a conservative politician talks about taxes that a “liberal” would talk about investment in the overall economy, and talk about long term gain vs. short term pain. In Obama’s case, it would dovetail nicely into what he is saying about McCain and the surge, that is a “tactic is not a strategy.”
I also wish that Obama had fought back against that stupid question that Lehrer asked: “what would you cut from your agenda given the economic downturn and/or the bailout package?” [he phrased in different manners in trying to elicit an answer] Not only was there no answer to the question as he asking Obama about something that, at that point, had no concrete price tag, it looks at spending in the here and now and not in long (or even medium, for that matter) term investment in the overall economy.
One other point: I have read a lot of things recently in the blogosphere, in comments as well as on some blogs, about how “evil” credit is; about “living within our means,” etc., without understanding the vital role that credit and lending play in how an economy can work. Businesses, government and individuals can have perfectly “good” reasons to go into debt, especially when it involves investment. In individuals we call these “mortgages” and “student loans,” for example; with businesses its called “capital investment.”
By adapting the “living within our means” meme, we accept that we only live in the here and now and not in the future. It is how, for example, we also ignore things such as the climate crisis. There is a scene in a West Wing episode (or it might be the movie “The American President”) in which the fictional Presidents states that Americans are thirsting for leadership – it’s 10 years later after that scene and by god that still hasn’t changed although Obama gives me a glimpse from time to time, only to fall back into establishment memes again……
The guy is rather windy and boring to look at, but I would be interested in your “take” on what you find there whenever you have a moment.
Viva Ian! Viva la revolucion!
i agree.
The New York Times correspondent for MSNBC or was it CNBC? was saying how people were against the bailout but nobody she talked to looked at its website we were not educating ourselves she said we were relying on others to form an opinion.
I have not heard such Patrician dismissing of us lowly Plebes in a while.
This from the paper that printed Judy Miller’s one source stories that were never doubled checked for accuracy. I wonder if the Times Hack reads the blogs? I’m sure I understand this issue better than she does or Ben Stein!
The Patricians think they must do this bailout despite what the mob thinks because they think they Know better than us.
Wisdom fails once it becomes self serving. These guys got us into this mess and no they can’t admit that they made a mistake much less fix it.
FWIW, Krugman had no problem with his vote. This is a rapidly evolving situation. The DOW is up 485 points today. One interpretation is that the situation is not quite as dire as Paulson made it sound. Also, on Monday Bernanke dumped around 600 billion in through the FED. That’s helping liquidity.
If McGovern was confident the bailout would fail, 12 votes, he might have wanted to “make nice” with Steny and Pelosi, because iirc he did not support them on the dismantling of the Fourth Amendment/new FISA legislation. ymmv.
Here is a link where Gwen Iffil describes the terms of the debate. the comments are interesting too.
will give it a listen tonight, and if i forget please give me a hard time about it. thanks *g*
Hey Ian can you weigh in on this accounting stuff?
Honestly, Paulson’s hissy fit for a bigger allowance is taking everyone’s attention away from bigger issues. The fact is, there are people who do NOT qualify for loans and I also feel that there should be no mortgage backed securities. I hate it when the bank sells my loan. I just do.
I have it as fedupusa.com
Why are we discussing a bailout when the Fed just gave away 600 billion?
very interesting comments indeed. i only wish the format of the debate were different but given Palin’s voice, it may be a blessing in disguise
The Iron Law of Oligarchy offers some explanations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Law_of_Oligarchy
Terrific post Ian.
It should be sent to every congress critter and news organization.
We have been witnessing a class warfare on workers and the poor and middle classes.
Allied on the other side are congress critters, the media, all corporations, investors, executives and so forth.
The have squeezed every ounce from the bottom, addicted the nation to consumerism and credit and self image and turned the nation into 99% wage slaves and 1% over lords who own it all and have more money than they can spend. That’s the Ameican Dream… rising to the top in the class warfare.
This is a MUST SEE film to understand how we got to be the way we are:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/d…..de_1.shtml
i liked hugh’s and ecahn’s comments this morning:
ecahn:
hugh:
see the links for the discussion i pulled these comments from.
Excellent question.
FWIW, 700 billion is about 5% of a 14 trillion dollar US mortgage market.
Selling the servicing rights should also be disallowed.
At least according to some the mortgage servicers are a big part of the problem. They tack on unnecessary fees stripping people of their equity. They are difficult to get ahold of. They flat out lie.
Keep in mind home buyers have no control over who services their mortgage. None.
http://www.msfraud.org/
Here is an interesting article, tantamount to Satan purchasing ice skates:
I think the only reason we are discussing it is because republicans need to be redeemed with their “independence” from Bush. IOW, I truly believe all of this to be kabuki.
the economy has been sucking wind for a long while now. this “crisis” is only to change up the election game.
New Ian upstairs with thoughts on the DeFazio bill
“…. Out of this grew a new culture of public relations and marketing in politics, business and journalism. One of its stars in Britain was Matthew Freud who followed in the footsteps of his relation, Edward Bernays, the inventor of public relations in the 1920s.
The politicians believed they were creating a new and better form of democracy, one that truly responded to the inner feelings of individual. But what they didn’t realise was that the aim of those who had originally created these techniques had not been to liberate the people but to develop a new way of controlling them”
Kabuki:
Would not be surprised as how many times in history has a president gone on TV and scared the American people. This in and of itself is suspicious to me.
The fact that Bush was telegraphing to the world that there is a crisis makes me think it is all BS.
This has been my biggest red flag about Obama all along, the fact that he will adopt establishment discussions regarding economic problems, the biggest of which was stating that “social security is broken” in Iowa, by throwing in some “free market” ideas into his health care proposal, and now by trying to get some kind of establishment “bail out” package passed. In fact, it appears to me with him that “reaching across the aisle” has always been an end in and among itself. Sometimes you have to fight for your beliefs and not acquiesce to everything; the modern GOP certainly knows how to play this way.
BTW, if I’m not mistaken, I think Short Ride Joe got an endorsement from Obama as well, which is another strike in my book.
The problem I have with what you (Selise) have been saying the last few days about passing something now is that I don’t think it’s very good politics. Don’t get me wrong, I certainly wholeheartedly agree with the policy behind what you are saying, but to dovetail into my prior comment, above, the American discourse is such that anything resembling what you are prescribing here would be tarred and feathered as “socialist” which, unfortunately is an absolute loser politically.
Someone up above here talked about the Fairness Doctrine. That is exactly on point – conservative ideas, while bankrupt, are so mainstreamed that anything that diverts from those concepts are considered “crazy;” where people such as Scott Ritter, Howard Dean, Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich may have been proven absolutely right, but are seen my a large section of the population as a tad loopy.
We have made some strides, it would have been absolutely inconceivable that Rachel Maddow would get to be on TV, let alone have her own show. The blogosphere plays a role in that; I fear, however, that it’s going to take longer than a lot of people have the patience for.
You have probably heard the shift in the tone of bailout supporters on the Hill. The are saying we need the bill just as it was. They are saying people don’t understand (like Warren Buffet) that these depressed values are really things which represent good long term investments. They are at least a break-even investment and taxpayers get their money back after the Divine Marketplace decides how to digest the bad with the good. ( Eat Gold. Shit Gold.) The media is making it sound as though the people who voted the bailout down are the ones who are sweating. Hey, I heard it on NPR!!!!
What do you guys make of this?
i’m pretty sure that it was not the case that he voted “yes” because of pressure from the leadership…. although i actually did think that before i talked to folks this afternoon in his office. now i think he actually thought it was a good idea. blech.
ian upstairs with more bailout ideas.
selise is against the bailout…
I’ve sent portions to my Senators already. Right now, one cannot get an e-mail through the House server . . . seems it’s bogged down.
Thanks, I missed both those threads.
Real estate values are the way most local and state governments fund themselves.
Krugman was unvarnished in his criticism of the bailout.
Maybe Krugman was even more frightened of the change in accounting rules? I’m not competent to say if that’s a worse solution, long term, than the bailout. It’s clear that the banks preferred the bailout, but I think there’s evidence that “politicizing” accounting rules gives even more power to government.
Krugman didn’t know how the vote was going to come out. He also didn’t know if financial Armageddon would come as a result. I guess, based on that, his long term liberal credential, and other issues, I’m comfortable giving him a pass on this. With the market up 485 points today, it’s easy to say Krugman was wrong. If Europe tanks tonite, as some are predicting, Krugman may be right tomorrow.
As I am sure you’re sick of reading from me. The GOP does not consider this a crisis, until they talk about bringing our troops home from the Middle East. That’s the low hanging fruit in terms of improving the balance sheet of the US government. That’s the real problem imho.
This is a really nice piece. Thank you. It’s essentially the argument I used to hammer my liberal Democratic congressman before the vote. This bailout is a sell out. The Democratic party is no longer “the party of the people,” but “the party of the people with money.” He voted “no.”
Totally off the wall thought that no one will read because we have gone on and I have been caught in EPU land.
While the country was burning, our congressmen were spending wasted energy on banning flag burning, naming post offices, and especially for the Republicans, shoring up their base of the Christian values crowd. Hell, I am a Christian, and they disgust me.
It is high time that the Republicans throw off that farce of thinking they have to have the blessing of the TV evangelist of the moment. There have been many. And well, become Republicans and Americans.
High time they and we decided that we are all on this boat together. It can be a ark, or a titanic.
i agree.
the most pissed off members of the progressive caucus are working with wingnuts like issa (from today’s press conference). i think in many ways this is not a right vs. left argument – and that should i think be the immediate focus.
also, while i don’t think a good bill will be passed before november, i don’t think it’s completely impossible either (maybe a 5% chance?). but i think, if we want to start turning public opinion, we have to start making the argument that we have good ideas and are prepared to implement them. fighting for what we think is right now, is part of making that argument. i expect it will take a while, but if we don’t start it will take longer.
even if the bill fails – so what? so what if it is called socialist? is that going to throw the congress to the republicans? i don’t think so.
but here is what we could gain – by tying obama and the congressional dems to a specific policy proposal (and bill) now, we make it harder for them to back off in january. which you know they are going to do.
Citigroup Inc. (C:US) gained 15 percent to $20.51. JPMorgan & Chase Co. (JPM:US) rose 14 percent to $46.70. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS:US) increased 7.3 percent to $128. Morgan Stanley (MS:US) rose 9.6 percent to $23. Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC:US) climbed 13 percent to $37.53. Bank of America Corp. (BAC:US) gained 16 percent to $35.
Why should I give these fuks money when they are making big buks and we are not??????
no way do i get tired of hearing about reason to end the war. and no way am i tired of reading your comments (especially when you disagree with me *g*).
i like krugman a lot, but i think he was wrong this time – not because i know economics. i don’t. at all. but because he doesn’t understand how congress has been working. for example, he still thinks oversight means accountability. but anyone who’s been watching the congressional hearings on cspan knows thats just not so.
so what if it is called socialist?
I know I’m going to say “what Digby said” but the fact of the matter is that, in order to such a bill passed, which is a long shot in the first place, would pretty much require close to 100 percent participation by the Democrats, which the GOP, along with a compliant media, would consequently hang around the necks of every single Democratic incumbent. It is no coninkiedink, for example, that Blue Dog Heath Shuler, hate ‘em or love ‘em voted against the bill.
Again, I certainly agree with the policies behind the bill. I just don’t think the time is right from a political discourse standpoint to get something good passed, and especially under the gun. To add to this point, we have had zero congressional hearings, under power of subpoena, on any of this stuff. I would certainly like some empirical, not emotional, evidence on seeing what actually happened here.
Obama’s clearly a Republican and he’s proved it this time. Not insane enough to belong in the current R party, but Republican. Anything that is done right will have to be pushed on him.
yes.
and i really don’t mind sane republicans – under one condition, that they don’t call themselves democrats. i want the sane republicans to take over the republican party and the progressives to take over the dems.
yeah, i know. only in my dreams. *g*
you make excellent points that i think need to be addressed. here is my first quick attempt.
as i said, i think the chances of such a bill being passed now is very low. but possibly not zero. do you think it is effectively zero?
when would the time be right and how would i be able to tell it was the right time?
if now is not the right time, what can we do now to help make tomorrow the right time?
really, really agree on this point. how can we make that happen? because as far as i can see most, but not all, of the congressional committee hearings are a joke. but if we could get some really excellent witnesses, i think it could be helpful (as michael greenberger was on the oil speculation hearings).
“it forces firms to report losses that they never expect to incur.”
Boo-Hoo. We shouldn’t have to report unexpected losses! Only expected ones.
Ah, So you have expected losses? Why?
do you think it is effectively zero?
I do. The reason being that the discourse and by the extension the media still favors a lot of Republican themes.
when would the time be right and how would i be able to tell it was the right time?
That’s the trickiest part, and I honestly don’t know, but we’re on the right track. It’s a matter of education. Remember that it took a Goldwater to beget Reagan. If you’ve read David Brock’s The Republican Noise Machine, you’ll find that there was a concerted effort from multiple right-wing think tanks to “work the refs, since the late 60s.” We are on the way of countering that with Brock’s Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, and other progressive efforts to counter a lot of misinformation and propaganda. As I said above, a Rachel Maddow didn’t happen overnight, but her views have gone from “too crazy for mainstream television” to beating Larry King in prime time.
I would say that once we see a Bill Moyers type on network television or its equivalent, we’ll be a heck of a lot closer.
if now is not the right time, what can we do now to help make tomorrow the right time?
Talk to people. If you’re up to it (and I can’t/won’t because I get tongue tied) call into Right Wing talk shows like Mike Stark does.
A lot of people are intimidated by the Internet and stay well clear of it. There is a lot of misinformation out there. For example, how many times have you gotten e-mails containing urban legends forwarded to you? I go out of my way to write back to those people and engage them. I have found that they really want the best for the country but have been so indoctrinated by silliness perpetrated by lies begotten from right wing think tanks.
In some respects, a lot of people have Stockholm syndrome. Sarah Robinson over at Ornicus (Dave Neiwart’s place) has some excellent posts about converting the seemingly unconvertable.
Another thing that our media culture has cultivated is to celebrate the dumb over the intelligent. It has begotten us George Bush and now Sarah Palin. I find that the left side of blogosphere generally celebrates the intelligent first. It is up to us readers to transmit this into the mainstream.
thanks!
i will look for you on current threads, in the hope that we can continue the conversation.