Class Warfare: An Analysis of the $700B Rejection

The $700B Bailout Plan was lackluster, and I am glad that it was rejected. I think that it was necessary but not well thought out, and not well-developed. There is the appropriate public perception that the taxbase (comprised, mostly, of ordinary "modest-means" citizens) is underwriting the cost of "bad [CEO] behavior," and compensating the "CEO Class" (and those that both overty and indirectly colluded with the CEO Class (banks, lenders, financial investment firms, et al)) for actions, approaches, and a fiscal philosophy regarding mortgage lending and other financial investments in which a particular class (the least equipped class, in terms of their socio-economic positioning, history, and education) was preyed upon for the benefit of the elite CEO Class ("the haves"), at the long-term detriment of the "have-nots."

If the banks need $700B of the taxpayers' money, why hasn't it dawned on the respective CEOs to ask the people if they can borrow it? Boone Pickens and others are taking out ads to ask people to lobby their congressmen to enact responsible, renewable energy policies. Right now the Bank/Financial Investment CEOs seem to be taking the "main-street-is-too-stupid-to-get-it" approach. These CEOs could do a lot to restore the public trust that they have steadily eroded by simply taking out an ad, or holding a press conference, to admit that they need the public's help in order to continue to do business. And, a further requirement should exist (or be self-imposed by the CEO Class and the Mortgage/Banking/Lending Sector) which would reward the public for their support in this time of shared crisis. They could probably just offer to waive all banking fees...or cut the interest rate that their "paycheck advance" branches charge...or cut the "rate-over-prime" that they charge on credit cards for 5 years, and pay a small fee to hedge against taxpayer losses.

I think that their arrogance prevents such a commonsense approach, because they don't accept that "their failure to MANAGE RISK is at least half of the problem." In addition, they feel entitled to be rescued with free money. They found out yesterday, however, that they're not asking for Congressional money. They are asking for taxpayer money.


"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford

Progressively,
LeftAngst

The Impact of a $700B Bailout (Or Rejection) To John Q Citizen

I do not think the initial rejection of the initial $700B Bailout Plan will have an overbearing impact on the Obama (or McCain) presidential campaigns. The final bill (whenever we get a financial recovery package that they can approve) will have a HUGE impact on either an Obama or McCain *administration* (not campaign), with a particularly significant/adverse impact on an Obama/Biden *administration*. Why? The push towards universal healthcare? Forget it. The redistribution of funding to underwrite this cannot --- in addition --- support the increased costs (wealth re-distribution) needed for universal healthcare (and other progressive socio-economic programs designed with the average, ordinary citizen-voter as the direct beneficiary). That is how the Bush Administration's laissez-fair oversight (and policies of de-regulations endorsed by REPUB political philosophy and Candidate McCain) has cut off the legs of the American infrastructure base. When you add the fact that *fraudulent-and-criminal* actions (without accountability, oversight, or punishment), as it relates to war profiteering and the War on Terror (see Blackwater and Bechtel as examples of contractor criminal abuse in the billions of dollars), and the *anti-conservative* fact that Bush has created and advanced a bloated, top heavy, costly government (conservatives traditionally call for "small government" in terms of infrastructure and costs to the taxbase), America is in a position of long-term economic crisis that *makes us less safe* and *more vulnerable* to terrorist attack or attack from rogue/hostile nation-states that we have been posturing against (Iran, North Korea, Russia; We cannot fund/allocate taxpayer-base appropriations to support military actions against a nation or group that actually *does* have weapons of mass destruction. This is a result of the federal government (primarily REPUB)'s disregard for the power-less, voice-less, etc.

Feel free to call me prophetic when Bush claims an "economic emergency," suspends the presidential election, and stays in office *past* January 2009 through the enactment of "The National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51"...

(Click: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html).

This isn't George Lucas' Star Wars, but life does imitate art when both the citizenry and the media don't challenge the status quo of the power establishment.


"One should try to locate power at the extreme of its exercise, where it is always less legal in character." -Michel Foucault

Progressively,
LeftAngst

A $700B Bailout? There's Always A Choice!

Has anyone read * SECTION 8 * of the proposed $700 billion bailout plan? It reads that:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are *non-reviewable* and committed to agency discretion, and may *not* be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts" --- which will allocate/transfer $700 billion in taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions --- will be conducted in a manner *unchallenged-able by courts* and *ungovern-able by the citizenry's duly sworn representatives*. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch (President of the United States/Treasury Secretary) who, let me remind you, will have the incentive to act upon this privilege as quickly as possible, before they leave office. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay, and no fundamental means of holding those who fail to be accountable. This is amazing...given the very public (loud) opposition to WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION that REPUBs and capitalism-driven DEMs (and socio-economically comfortable/politically centrist and moderate citizens) typically have. Fundamentally, this is a wealth redistribution of funds from the have-nots to the "elite wing of the elite class" of Americans.The privately owned Federal Reserve Bank is *not* FEDERAL. It is a private bank that controls the money supply and loans money out to the Country, Government, and World Banks at INTEREST which, thereby, creates more debt.

The Federal Reserve Bank:
1. Operates under "little-to-no" regulation or legal oversight by/under the government.
2. Creates, writes, and manages its own policies (Section 8).
3. Is privately owned by international bankers.
4. Controls the MONEY supply.
5. Controls the interest rates.
6. Profits from WAR, lending money for WAR (approximated at $12 billion per month at interest)
7. Has had to increase the influx of money since its inception.

Why? It is a system that creates debt due to the fact that it controls the money supply while simultaneously determining the interest rate, thus giving people money with interest attached to it to pay of their debts. Paying off debt with debt money (money loaned at interest)?? There is a need for wholesale, SYTEMATIC and SYSTEMIC CHANGE...and not just the on-the-surface changes to electoral (campaign-driven) presidential politics.

"It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." -Morpheus (Laurence Fishburn), The Matrix

Progressively,
LeftAngst

The Failings of The Bush Doctrine

Charlie Gibson (ABC News) asked REPUB VP nominee Sarah Palin about the so-called "Bush Doctrine" and if she agreed with/supported it. She hemmed and hawed ("With respect to what aspect, Charlie?") in the effort of an unprepared student to get the teacher (or a smarter fellow classmate) to give her some "context clues" or the answer. Charlie was shrewd in initially not falling for that, and re-phrasing his inquiry by asking: "What's your interpretation of the Bush Doctrine?" She went on some riff that clearly illustrated that she didn't know what The Bush Doctrine is/was. Now, for the record, the average USA citizen/voter and even the average politician (particularly those that are NOT in the Senate/House or well-versed in international affairs/policy) does NOT comprehend what The Bush Doctrine is.

Was it fair to ask? Yes. Does Palin get a failing grade because she didn't know what it was? No. Does Palin get a failing grade for her answer (after Charlie Gibson educated her on what it was)? Yes. Why? The Bush Doctrine is the belief (see Iraq example) that the USA, as a result of self-assumed and defined rights of "anticipatory self-defense," can arbitratily attack another sovereign nation (basically "attack them before they attack you"). What's so radical (illegal/unconstitutional) about that? Anticipatory self-defense is illegal. It is outlawed by the international Geneva Convention treaties, the UN Charter (international treaty), and the US Constitution. In addition, anticipatory self-defense is NOT a right that is appropriated to the executive branch of the government (President, VP, Department of Defense, etc) to arbitrarily exercise. The ONLY justifiable means for attacking a nation FIRST (before they attack you) is if their attack on you is IMMINENT. The Iraq attack was unconstitutional/illegal because there was NO THREAT OF IMMINENT ATTACK. The presence of WMD...would not have even triggered imminence, unless actionable support existed that the production/presence of WMD was about to be used in AN IMMINENT WAY against the USA. The problem (in terms of world community stability is that the USA cannot continue to justify The Bush Doctrine (but then get mad at the use of that same support when other nations do the same). Examples: (1) Russia's attack on Georgia was an example of the illegal (violation of int'l treaties and the international laws of war) anticipatory self-defense (2) Israel/Lebanon was an example of the illegal (violation of int'l treaties and the international laws of war) anticipatory self-defense, etc. Adoption of The Bush Doctrine ENDAGERS AMERICANS because a rogue nation (Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc) could say that --- based on the speeches, posturing, and verbal threats of prominent neo-cons within the Bush Administration --- they feel like they are in danger. To thwart that danger, they are going to attack the USA. McBush/Palen fail in this area. Obama/Biden need to simplify the explanation of this for the non-wonks of the USA public, and criticize the REPUB ticket with respect to this issues-based policy. Please also understand that WE ARE NOT AT WAR. Only Congress can issue a DECLARATION OF WAR. That has NOT been done. We are engaged in the illegal invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq.

"If you wish for peace,
understand war." -B. H. Liddell
Hart in Strategy (1967)

Progressively,
LeftAngst