If congress wants its powers back they will have to take them back.

wait till larry sinclair hears about this…

oh shit.

signed. Thanks for the heads-up.

Thanks Jane.

(I am to pissed off to comment furthter.)

Branson is working to get the proper authority to open a Bank in the UK! He’s also looking at doing the same in North America. Saw that over at AmericaBlog if I’m recalling correctly. They follow the British financials closely.

I CAN’T WAIT.

I would move EVERYTHING into such a *new* bank.

That’s what we need to start to break the banking cabal.

let’s see – single payer off the table, carbon tax off the table, alternatives to bankster bailouts off the table, ending our stupid and immoral wars of occupation anytime soon off the table, justice for the victims of torture off the table and, of course, transparency off the table.

health care, climate, financial system, war, justice and accountability all add up to change in marketing strategy but no, or very little, change in substance.

i’m sure i’m missing some stuff, but even so it’s quite a list for so early in the new administration.

Jefferson’s distrust of the relationships between private banks and corporate aristocrats becomes clearer every day! Now Obama uses the same logic as cheney and bush to cover his butt. This is bull*hit!!!

signed, thanks Jane

Obama disappoints, again.

this it, what was signed?
http://www.house.gov/apps/list…..igned.html
i should inquire the lack of delahunt’s name as cosponsor to HR 1207 FRTA…

Thanks, Selise. I had almost the exact same thing typed out and deleted it because every other word was the F word in my version.

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”

Pete Townsend “Won’t Get Fooled Again”

More change we can’t believe in.

Obama could have and should have applauded this commission. That would have sent a strong message that he wanted, and we would, get to the bottom of this.

But let’s be real about this. It is doubtful that anyone in Washington (with naturally a few exceptions) wants to get to the truth. Just look at how many of the banksters retain their positions, their salaries, and their power. We don’t really have to wait for a Pecora Commission Redux to know that all of these guys including their subordinates should have been ousted months ago and rather than continuing business as usual they should be facing criminal investigations for fraud and control fraud.

This move by Obama just further soldifies my view that this is going to be largely a PR exercise. Only if we get hard-nosed, competent investigators and counsel like those suggested by Bill Black:

Jack Blum and Saul Wisenberg (Dem., Rep) as counsel. Hire Dick Newsom and Chris Seefer as your key investigators

http://firedoglake.com/2009/03…..nt-1863916

can we have some confidence that this commission is legit.

(((oldnslow)))

i just said all my “fuck”s out loud this time instead of typing them.

stupid speech this morning has me extra pissed.

Signed earlier.

selise @ 7 – seems the only changes to come to deecee are the faces and then not so many new faces. Recycling old ideas and people doesn’t spell change in my book. Speaking of books…

Book Saloon on Secrets next week? I’d really prefer not to have to speed read this book. It’s much too fun and educational for that.

The Rude One seems to have liked the speech.

Sorry for the OT, but this piece from Politico 44 is the first I’ve seen of Baucus even entertaining a public option wrt health care reform.

Speaking with reporters at a breakfast briefing Thursday, Baucus said he expects the package to include some sort of public plan.

That’s an obviously good first step, but now comes the troubling part:

“I do suspect that a version will be there,” Baucus said. “Now, by saying that, I don’t want to frighten people, particularly on the industry side. … All I’m saying is, there are ways to skin a cat. There are ways to find a solution.”

Screw the “industry side”.

They have had years to solve the coverage problem and have failed miserably.

but the list of co-sponsors you posted earlier has me rattled…really.
http://action.firedoglake.com/…..osponsors/
i agree actions need to be taken, but which ones first? is investigating the fed going to derail/replace other investigations into the now apparently ‘routine’ practices that got us here?

that’s what i’m wondering, that has my antennae up. another ‘watch the birdie over here’…why else would slimy snakes be on the train advocating it? reelection-constituents are demanding it? don’t know, that’s why i’m presenting it here.
=========
here’s my epu’d comment from the earlier thread…
sorry for putting this out in the middle of a ‘call to action’ thread–but—it’s buggin’ me. not sayin’ yay or nay, just have questions.

what’s the catch?

grassley? bachman? rohrbacher? hello?

i’m questioning it because what is this legislation replacing/deflecting that would have gone on in place of it? investigate the fed instead of ‘what’? the same people blocking other investigations into this whole mess are wholeheartedly behind this.

i see names like theirs behind it and i have to ask, what’s the catch?

if there’s an answer, i’m missin’ it.

The fact that Cheney admitted that he was a PTSD sufferer and that’s how he responded to the world pretty much negates everything he said after. Fuck him. He’s not worthy to be called Cthulu or Satan anymore.

Cheney? PTSD? Give. Me. A. Fuckin’. Break.

my comment was directed at the fed transparency act, not the other one.

i agree. don’t think the date has been scheduled yet though. maybe jane will see our comments and give us a little more lead time on greider’s salon.

the other morning ecahn sounded possibly interested in reading it too.

And everybody knows it. So far, only one car is driving down the highway in this game of political chicken.

cheney’s mistaking ptsd for paranoia…

: )

I sure hope it’s not that soon. I’ve no idea how many pups have read it, at any point since it was first published, but it seems to me that the more people who have read it recently would make for a much more informative thread. I’m still really hot about that scumbag this mornin’. Talk about low lifes.

another childhood game–
they’re all playin’ ‘hot potato’

hot potato hot potato hot hot hot…..

just one area of disagreement i have with the rude pundit:

But on another level, what Obama was doing was removing the unitary executive idea from the center of the government.

imo jane’s post above on obama’s use of a signing statement shows the importance of putting obama’s words in context with his actions.

Cheney was scared shitless on 9/11. Too bad. And long past time to stop acting on the trauma. We have. He should too.

Obama is becoming such a hypocrite. How he has the nerve to face his childen is beyond me.

Cheney has been scared shitless his entire life.

during the clinton administration it was the republicans who sometimes pushed back on presidential overreach. i’d guess (but don’t know) something similar is happening now. maybe they really believe it but only do it when the Ds have the presidency or maybe it’s all for show. personally, i don’t care what their motivation is (and it’s too hard to figure out anyway).

pisses me off that the Ds can’t be counted on to do the same (push back on presidential overreach) when the Rs have the presidency though.

Selise, pls. drop on over to oxdown and Dog’s post *G*

As usual, Hugh spells it out; the only thing I can add is there must be a new definition for ‘transparency’ I’m not aware of.

Jane, signed but when I tried to have the ‘title’ U.S. citizen or ‘taxpayer’, it didn’t like it.

Obama appears to be walking it back on indefinite detention.

From a meeting with human rights activists yesterday:

“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05…..a.html?hpw

And in his speech today:

Speaking at the National Archives, which houses the Constitution and other documents embodying America’s system of government and justice, the president promised to work with Congress to develop a safe and fair system for dealing with those Guantánamo detainees who cannot be prosecuted “yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05…..lobal-home

This is just recycling the same old schlock. How do you know that these people pose such a danger if you have no evidence that they do. If you have such evidence even if it is highly classified, then you can bring a case. The federal courts have been dealing with such information for years.

I said it before the election and say it again; when a President assumes office, he will NOT give up any powers previously assumed/granted to prior President’s.

IF there is another attack from a foreign source on U.S. soil, I’ll bet all comers that the Obama Admin will be even more restrictive than the Bush Admin.

Geithner’s and the administrations continuation of the Paulson paradigm of bailout of the financial sphere is the only way to possibly keep the economic system intact as it has been for 30 years. As such it is the only political possibility. Any other path would be revolutionary. That said it is corrupt and is going to destroy the Treasury and the dollar.

Obama is in an impossible position politically. Even if he recognizes the fundamental flaws there is no political or practical alternative.

Economically nothing has happened yet. We are in a holding pattern, like Wiley Coyote past the edge of the cliff. I know most can’t belive this.

I’m still really hot about that scumbag this mornin’. Talk about low lifes.

thought your response was perfect. many thanks.

imo it’s important that someone makes some comment to condemn that kind of bs — for the sake of lurkers if nothing else (i once met an fdl lurker who of course i didn’t know but who, when i introduced myself with my online name, gave me a big hug and thanked me for something i’d written in response to comments she thought were out of line and had found hurtful).

Good grief, they’re now conducting a lottery:
“Dear Friend,
How would you like to sit at my table at a dinner with President Obama?

I wanted to make sure that you saw this exciting message about your chance to win a free trip to Washington, D.C. to join President Obama, our Democratic Leadership, and me in Washington, D.C. Thursday, June 18th to celebrate our New Direction for America.

If you enter today, you and your guest will sit at my table should you be the lucky winner who is chosen.

Contribute $5, $10, or more and be automatically entered for a chance to win a free trip to Washington, D.C. to join President Obama and me in D.C. June 18th — you will even sit at my table and go home with a photograph with the President!

Every time you give is another chance to join us.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Nancy
Speaker Nancy Pelosi”

I’ve talked with JFK, King Hussein and had a great lunch with Franco. Free and open. Why would I spend money to dine with a corporatist prez?

okay

Bush’s third term with a Democratic veneer.

Anyone who thinks Social Security is safe or that this guy is anything other than the final assault on the New Deal is seriously in denial.

yep, this one has me perplexed.

As head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner was smack in the middle of many conflicts of interest surrounding Goldman Sachs, AIG, and the bank bailout. This signing statement could be used to protect him from inquiry.

I guess I’m missing something, Jane. The New York Fed isn’t even really part of the executive branch. It’s a quasi-independent entity. How could executive privilege protect what Geithner did while at the New York Fed? It might be an argument to hide communications that took place after he became head of Treasury.

In any case, I’d like to see executive privilege narrowed considerably. It was supposed to protect confidential advice given to the president.

I think it was the Clinton precedent that forced the signing statement. Obama likes to keep control of things — that’s how he ran his campaign, and that is how he is going to run the presidency. He looks down the road and sees trouble, he takes measures ahead of time. Tkhat’s the kind of presidency we have: Bush and Cheney created it, and it isn’t going to go away.

Good point and I think will stand up to court challenge, which I doubt Obama would mount. Geithner is responsible for his actions prior to becoming part of the administration. He will have some protection on some issues after having joined it. They should put Bernanke on the stand, too. Paulson is the critical one, but he may be protected.

How could executive privilege protect what Geithner did while at the New York Fed?

Because the Treasury Department (under Paulson) was also involved in the AIG/Goldman machinations, Lehman etc.

It would be really sickening if Obama used executive privilege to cover-up things done under the Bush administration in order to protect Geithner.

Sorry to say, I believe he will

Seconded.

Right on. Your point is too little contemplated…I guess things haven’t got bad enough yet…

Kings rarely give up their powers without the application of force. You have made a king out of your president, and you have no means to apply force.

Jane, your NYT link is broken. Here’s where it looks like it should go:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…..038;st=cse