Why the Bailout Vote May Fail

[davidswanson]

Today's vote on the Paulson Plunder Act of 2008 may fail. It should. You should help block it by phoning your representative right now at [phone] and promising to vote for them in November only if they vote NO on this grand larceny today. We do have a chance at winning on this and blocking this bill. Here's why.

First, the corporatists have put a bunch of true believers in office. They thought it'd be really clever to convince people that government is evil and should shrink and that the highest good is cutting taxes. They've carved out a huge loophole for the biggest increaser in spending, taxes, and debt: the military. But Congress Members are notorious for not being able to think straight in the presence of tanks and waving flags. Today's vote is not on eliminating a useful public program, and not on putting our grandchildren into debt in order to kill some foreigners either. Today's vote is on whether we should put our grandchildren into debt in order to give a pile of money to the same crowd that is always demanding that people be held responsible for their mistakes, and some of the money could even go to multinational or foreign billionaires. That last point picks up opposition from the true believers in xenophobia, who -- when combined with the true believers in cutting taxes except for wars -- make up a good chunk of the Congress.

Second, there are remnants of true belief in a principle or two in the shriveled souls of some of the Democrats too. There are those in Congress who still cling to the belief that somehow they are there to do good for people. For almost two years, Democrats have voted for blood and plutocracy because their party leaders have told them it was for the greater good. But there are some claims that even a Democrat won't believe. In fact, some of them are actually angry about being lied to so many times by Bush and Cheney and their own party. They're sick of being rushed into fraudulent unconstitutional actions by imaginary emergencies, bullying, and bluffs. They're even beginning to be vaguely aware of the danger that lies in transferring the powers of Article I of the Constitution to the White House. Congress has given up the power to make laws, the power to make war, the power of impeachment and oversight, as well as the power of the purse. This bill hands the purse to the White House, giving up all pretense that Congress serves any purpose beyond that served by court jesters. There are members of Congress whose heads a glimmer of that realization has begun to penetrate.

Third, it's too late for party leadership to do significant damage to a Congress member's reelection chances as retribution for a No vote, but it is not too late for each member to significantly damage their own chances with a Yes vote. They know that, and we know that, and if we keep telling them over and over they may act on it.

Fourth, while Congress has largely accepted that the single most important question is who becomes president next, that question is not more important to any Congress member than his or her own reelection, and there is no clear way in which a Yes vote benefits one presidential candidate over another, since they both plan to vote Yes. This should leave members of the House free to vote No.

Fifth, while many Congress members are openly in the pay of the companies that stand to benefit from this biggest ever reverse bank heist, they have not been bribed to support this specific plan, and they can oppose it without necessarily giving up much of their dirty campaign income.

Sixth, the American people are sick to death of everything that has happened in Washington in the past decade. There is a huge source of political good will waiting to be tapped by those who stand up and say No to corporate socialism, no to fascism, no to George W. Bush and Hank Paulson.

Call Washington now and make sure your Congress member is aware of this: [phone].

[still_one]

1. and what are they going to tell their constiuents when a complete liquidity blowout occurs

because they didn't vote to stop the bleeding?

[sharp_stick]

3. But that won't happen

some dude on the internets told me it was all a scam. Because I know nothing about international and national finance I'm going to believe the guy on the internets.

:sarcasm:

When I see both sides in congress during an election actually working through a weekend on something this unpopular instead of pulling a quick political band-aid job and heading back to campaign it scares me. Also, if Barack Obama is in favor of something and actually saying that it will slow down his agenda for change it scares me. I think shrubbo and his merry band of lackeys and fundie assholes really screwed the pooch. I really hate that prick.
They wanted this to wait for the next President so he could claim it's not him but it blew up in his smirking little face too soon.

[davidswanson]

11. some of the dudes on the internets

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/chicago-economists-lead-b_n_129599.html

[davidswanson]

12. why we need a better bill

What They're Voting on
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36406

Five Reasons to Vote NO
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36402

Wall Street Welfare Queens
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36412

KUCINICH: OPPOSES BAILOUT AND ASKS: "Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?"
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36400

A Better Bailout
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36399

Pelosi Plowing a Republican Bill Through Congress and Pissing Off Republicans at Same Time
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36394

What's Good for Wall Street Is Only Good For Wall Street
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36386

Rep. George Miller Defends Democrats' Conduct on Paulson's Plunder
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36370

They Want Mama to Make It All Better
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36367

Bank Borrowing From Fed Already Exceeded Bailout Total in Last Week: $700 Billion Figure Means Nothing
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36355

Ron Paul: Greenspan, Bernanke Should Be Criminally Charged
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36354

NO BAILOUT Petition by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders Tops 40,000 Signers - Sign Off for NO BAILOUT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36353

Alabama's Senator Shelby Rejects Paulson's Treasury Raid
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36352

Bailout Bums: Libertarian-Minded Republicans Are Caught With Their Pants Down As Wall Street Panics The Capital City
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36351

10 Ways to Bail Out Wall Street (and Main Street) Without Soaking Taxpayers in Debt
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36348

Once in a Century Rip-Off
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36347

Socialist Bailout of the Criminal Investment Banks: Are We On The Verge of The Deluge?
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36346

Redistributing the Wealth - National Protests Erupt Over Bailout Plan
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36345

How Wall Street Can Bail Itself Out Without Destroying The Dollar
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36326

Financial Terrorism
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36318

Congress Has 43,457,362 Reasons to Help Goldman Sachs
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36315

Thanks, Hank!
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36314

Tax Revolt!
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36310

Well-Run Banks Balk at Paulson Plan; Should Be Included in Negotiations
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36304

Iraq All Over Again: Bush, Paulson and Bernanke are Just Crying Wolf
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36295

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36279

I DISSENT - An Essay Against A Government Bailout
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36277

Rep. DeFazio Asks Wall Street to Pay for Its Own Bailout
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36269

Ann Wright and David Swanson Discuss War and Bailouts
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36263

Danny Schechter on the Sub-Crime Problem
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36261

Rep. Marcy Kaptur on House Floor
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36256

“Mortgage Fraud”: The Paulson Bail-Out Plan
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36254

Bail Out People Before Bankers
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36253

If Congress Agrees to This Rip-off Bailout, We'll Be Handing the Money to the People Who Got Us in This Mess
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36250

Bailout Plan Won't Be End of Wall Street Bailouts
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36237

Blood, Sweat, and Bailouts
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36233

Stand Against the Bailout Scam!
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36219

Now is the Time to Resist Wall Street's Shock Doctrine
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36216

Bernie Sanders
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36195

Ten Reasons Why Bush's Proposed Bailout Is Larceny
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36192

What Nobody's Saying: The Bailout Will Kill the Dollar
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36190

We Can Stop Paulson's Plunder
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36187

"No Blank Check" or "No %$#!*@ Check"
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36169

The Eight Year Bailout
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36145

Stop Paulson's Plunder: ACTION LINKS and Background
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/36182

Send Your Money to Cindy Before Nancy Spends it All
http://cindyforcongress.org

[Truth2Tell]

22. But YOU'LL believe some dude on your TV. Enjoy your fascism. nt

[sabrina 1]

14. Well, the dude who rushed into Congress

last weekend waving a three-page manifesto demanding we hand him, personally, without oversight, nearly a trillion dollars because the sky was about to fall and if only he could get this check signed 'quickly and cleanly', he, this same dude who told us just two weeks earlier that the sky was holding up just fine, could, possibly, keep the sky from falling.

This dude, I heard, has a lot to gain from putting this country into serious debt.


Then another dude, Rep. Kucinich, who has never been wrong about the schemes of this administration, and a few others who have nothing to gain, told us we must stop this bill from passing.

So, the problem is, which dude has more credibility? Personally, I like Kucinich's bail-out plan better.

And, imo, Henry Paulson and Barnanke should be fired. Giving these two control over all of this money, and the bill gives Paulson enormous powers, powers should be held by Congress, is like putting Brownie in charge of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina.

Everyone we are hearing from are dudes from TV or the Internet, unless someone knows them all personally, and I wouldn't give Henry Paulson my checkbook to balance if it only had $100.00 in it, because he's been a monumental failure (no surprise as he's a Bush apointee) so far.

[Pete2069]

29. We have the elitist tied to the same institutions they make judgement for...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson#Early_life_and_family

Paulson was Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of
Defense at The Pentagon from 1970 to 1972.

He then worked for the administration of U.S. President
Richard Nixon, serving as assistant to John Ehrlichman from
1972 to 1973.

He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, working in the firm's Chicago
office for Manmeet Taneja. 
He became a partner in 1982. 
From 1983 until 1988, Paulson led the Investment Banking group
for the Midwest Region, and became managing partner of the
Chicago office in 1988.
 
From 1990 to November 1994, he was co-head of Investment
Banking, then, Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to
June 1998; 
eventually succeeding Jon Corzine (now Governor of New Jersey)
as its chief executive.
 
His compensation package, according to reports, was
""""US$37 million in
2005,"""" and US$16.4 million projected
for 2006.
 
His net worth has been estimated at over US$700 million.
 
Paulson has personally built close relations with China during
his career. 
In July 2008 it was reported by The Daily Telegraph that:
"Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has intimate relations
with the Chinese elite, dating from his days at Goldman Sachs
when he visited the country more than 70 times."

[MindMatter]

15. They could start with the truth

Beginning with the fact that there is nothing in this bill that has any bearing on lquidity whatsoever. Liquidity is about money supply, and that is 100% under the control of the Fed. Congress has nothing to say about that.

This bill is about allowing bankers to walk away from bad loans, which affects their profits, but not their liquidity.

The bill allows the Fed to operate with 0% reserves. The Fed can create as much money as they wish and give it to any bank they wish.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Isn't that, I ask with simplistic ignorance, a recipe for hyperinflation?

Creating money to wipe away debt with no reference to the situation that created the debt in the first place? Isn't the only possible result of that the drastic devaluation of the dollar?

Did I mention that I'm an economic ignoramus?

[Virginia Dare]

19. This is a defninite and unavoidable consequence of this bail out..

but they keep telling us it's better than the alternative. Do you want to take the risk? I don't.

[Pete2069]

27. If so d... bad why did Paulson WAIT till now instead of first of this year??

They the financial investment firms "EAT CAKE". 
While the little people watch..

http://www.thought-criminal.org/article/node/1433
U.S. reviewing regulation of investment banks

03/26/2008 

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. said Wednesday that Wall
Street investment firms must provide more information about
their financial condition if they are occasionally allowed to
borrow money from the Federal Reserve as commercial banks do. 

But ""he did not call for investment banks to be
regulated"" in the same manner that commercial banks
now are.
Paulson defended the Fed's recent offering of a $30 billion
credit line to JPMorgan Chase to help it take over the
foundering investment bank Bear Stearns, but he said
""such moves ought not to become
routine"".

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. Done. I called last week to tell him no before the deal was made with my reasons

and called again just now. I asked the person who answered the phone if he's been getting calls on this and she said yes, they have. Good. :)

BTW...I didn't choose to tell them I wouldn't vote for him if he votes yes. He's one of the most progressive Democrats in Congress.

[screembloodymurder]

4. Very likely.

And along party lines. Pelosi is a Peloser.

[lib2DaBone]

5. I hope David Swanson is right.... Ron Paul on C-Span Making Sense

The Dems are walking into this trap and they are going to get SLAUGHTERED! How can they not see it coming? (This could end the Democratic Party) Most of the $700 Billion is going to go to the Royal Bank of Scotland. Ron Paul says that this Bill will do nothing and inflation will go thru the roof!

[nxylas]

10. Picture here of a Royal Bank of Scotland spokesperson reacting to the news

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. The Fed pumped in liquidity and so did the European banks, and

they're still not lending even to each other. And they don't intend to. This money won't do it. It'll take safety (regulation) and real value of assets (refinancing foreclosures).

It needs a bold plan, but not this one. A real one.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. That's what I'm worried about, the efficacy of the plan. I think the rush is the problem. We need t

slow down, hold hearings and examine this before we commit. Congress needs to stay in session a couple of more weeks.

[Dr.Phool]

7. Take $700 billion and invest it in infrastructure, jobs, education, and health care.

Raise working peoples wages, and you'll see liquidity out the yin-yang.

When people go back to good paying jobs, something we've been losing since Ray-gun, they'll have money to spend.

[Not the Only One]

8. Yep. Let Wall Street should pay for Wall Street’s mistakes.

Use our money for our interests.

[Not the Only One]

9. delete

delete

[Virginia Dare]

20. Agreed, and we need to get pension plans out of Wall Street...n/t

[Pete2069]

28. Don't you understand the system.....

All money "pours" up to the top and if the trickle
down does happen so what.... What Do you what to do ,, eat
cake... Well now you can not longer eat your cake ,, because
they want that to...

Ever notice the 2 million dollar homes and up ,,, Like McSame
has ,,, well someone has to pay for it.

[Imagevision]

16. Bailout Vote May Fail? or, just keeping asking for more BILLIONS like they did for the Iraq war

[Plucketeer]

18. I just keep asking myself : WHO would...

...come to MY rescue if I mismanaged our money and investments to where it wiped us out??? NO ONE - that's who! I understand all the supposed repercussions that await us if we don't "save" Wall St.. What this country really needs is some honest: "Hey! Where'd my money go???" kind of sacrafice. NOTHING imparts a better lesson than the school of hard knocks. :banghead:

[davidswanson]

21. I'd come to your rescue

if I had billions of dollars.

Come to think of it so would everybody else here.

Come to think of it, collectively, we DO have billions of dollars.

All we need now is a representative government.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. Hilarious! It looks like the Republican detritus are finessing the Democratic riff-raff.

Apparently, the radical amendment of the bill was cosmetic and simply gave the green light to Ali Paulson and his 40 thieves (40 signifies "testing or trial" in the Bible and they already seem to have provided that in abundance); scant element of regulation or control of spending genreally or in terms of remuneration by way of golden parachutes, etc.; and zero element of castigation or criminal accountability. It goes without saying that the Democrats did not insist on financing of bankrupt home-owners or the high street.

Of course, it's not over yet, but I pray that those "Democrats in name only" get well and truly finessed by the Republican riff-raff. There's no way the public are going to forgive the Republicans, no matter what they do. The only danger is the twisting of that reality by the Republican noise-machine in furtherance of their industrial-scale, electoral fraud, come election time.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. It's ironical that had the DNC Democrats not been so ambivalent and conflicted

about your corporatist capitalism (WWII, notwithstanding) and recognised it for the insane evil it is, they (the Democrats) would have been able to say to them, "Look, whatever legislation we decide on, in order to deal with the catastrophe you've created, you will sign up to WITHOUT ANY PRIOR INPUT ON YOUR PART on its drafting, or you will face the wrath of the American people. I think the American people will be very comfortable with this totally partisan Democratic approach at this juncture. Why wouldn't they? You may have consigned them and their children to penury. Not border-line. total.

As it is, they are now being effectively spanked, not only by their "bona fide" Democratic colleagues, but by the people who should, at this very moment, be in the stocks, together with their crooked pals in the Treasury and the banking sector, being pelted with tomatoes, etc.

But since the DNC favour the corrupt far right, and have a distaste for actual democracy, let's hope something better may emerge, from their humiliation. I'm surprised Barney Frank fell for it, but maybe he's not as knowledgeable about the loop-holes afforded by the bill to the villains, as our Paul Lehto.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. When you are right...you are right...

[bertman]

26. Thank you David. For the sane explanation and for all of the backup.

What is so amazing is that the Democratic leadership has FINALLY CHOSEN TO STAND UP AND FIGHT. Unfortunately, it's FOR BUSH.

The citizenry is SO AGAINST THIS it is astounding. It's visceral. A total gut reaction to being screwed yet again. We're talking Republicans and Dems.

But what do our stalwart leaders do? They stand WITH the Disaster-in-Chief and his Wall Street mouthpiece.

I feel like Alice in freakin Wonderland.