But what is amazing to me is that so many people, the 'ordinary folk', the person struggling to make their mortgage payments, worrying about a future for their children, paying education fees, meeting car payments and even basic day-to-day costs, are not aware that this whole bailout was a scam. Pure and simple.
I don't purport to be the best writer in the world and will defer to someone who has explained the situation so succinctly and concisely that I have no option but to share the article with you. It is written by Naomi Klein for 'The Nation'. Here is an excerpt of her view of the bailout:
"In the final days of the election, many Republicans seem to have given up the fight for power. But that doesn't mean they are relaxing. If you want to see real Republican elbow grease, check out the energy going into chucking great chunks of the $700 billion bailout out the door. At a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, Republican Senator Bob Corker was fixated on this task, and with a clear deadline in mind: inauguration. "How much of it do you think may be actually spent by January 20 or so?" Corker asked Neel Kashkari, the 35-year-old former banker in charge of the bailout.
When European colonialists realized that they had no choice but to hand over power to the indigenous citizens, they would often turn their attention to stripping the local treasury of its gold and grabbing valuable livestock. If they were really nasty, like the Portuguese in Mozambique in the mid-1970s, they poured concrete down the elevator shafts.
The Bush gang prefers bureaucratic instruments: "distressed asset" auctions and the "equity purchase program." But make no mistake: the goal is the same as it was for the defeated Portuguese--a final frantic looting of the public wealth before they hand over the keys to the safe.
How else to make sense of the bizarre decisions that have governed the allocation of the bailout money? When the Bush administration announced it would be injecting $250 billion into America's banks in exchange for equity, the plan was widely referred to as "partial nationalization"--a radical measure required to get the banks lending again. In fact, there has been no nationalization, partial or otherwise. Taxpayers have gained no meaningful control, which is why the banks can spend their windfall as they wish (on bonuses, mergers, savings...) and the government is reduced to pleading that they use a portion of it for loans." Read the whole article here.
Do you agree with her?
5 comments:
If Senator Obama wins this election, the following is what it has taken to get a very questionable, extremely inexperienced, very junior first time Senator past the mark:
1. Senator Obama’s campaign is outspending Senator McCain’s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
2. Senator Obama’s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain’s campaign has opened up.
3. The mainstream media has been completely biased against Senator McCain.
4. Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama, have been openly supporting Senator Obama, and are under investigation for committing voter registration fraud in multiple states favoring Senator Obama.
5 An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
6. Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
7. Senator McCain is disadvantaged because of the unpopularity of the incumbent President.
8. All four of the debate moderators lean to the left and were not 100% fair.
Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front? I have heard people state that on the news from both campaigns. That should tell you something. Also, Senator Obama pulled a cheap shot on Senator McCain and the American public in regards to campaign financing. Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign. At the last moment, Senator Obama backed out of his agreement and took private financing, giving Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign. In addition, Senator Obama is not being totally open as to where all his contributions are coming from. But even though Senator Obama took a sucker punch and tricked Senator McCain and all Americans by backing out of his agreement, Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing. This is severely disadvantaging Senator McCain’s campaign financing by putting much lower caps on the amount of money he will have available. This is the reason Senator Obama can outspend Senator McCain 4 to 1. This also shows that Senator Obama does not keep his campaign promises, just like his past campaign promises.
Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes across his desk from them. In other words, the person writing the check will also be the one cashing it. There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances. We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights. They have already promised all of those things. You will have a government that will tax the people that are creating the jobs so they can “spread the wealth around”. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? Have you ever seen a business owned by a poor person? Are they the ones starting small businesses and creating jobs? Obviously not! So we have established the fact that the people that own the small businesses and create the jobs are NOT the poor. So lets talk about what is going to happen when they start taxing the people that do own the small businesses that create the jobs.
So what do you think will happen when they start taxing the small business owners? First, jobs will be lost. They will not be able to afford to keep the same amount of people they have now – they will have to let people go. In addition, they will not be able to expand their businesses and hire more people. The second thing that will happen is that prices will go up. Do you think businesses will not raise the cost of their products and services to offset the extra taxes they have to pay? This should be obvious. The prices will go up on everything and will affect everybody – to include the middle class and the poor. When you go to the grocery store, the food prices will be higher. When you go buy a car, the prices will be higher. When you go to the department store the prices are going to be higher. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner; if your expenses go up, would you not raise the price of your products to pay for them? Of course you would! And taxes are an expense.
Now lets talk about presidential qualifications. When a federal employee or a member of the military has a need to have access to classified materials, they would need to get a security clearance. A security clearance attempts to certify that an individual is of high moral character and does not pose a security risk. If a federal employee or a member of the military admits to using a dangerous drug, such as cocaine, they will not be eligible for a security clearance. In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee, he or she would be moved to a position of lesser responsibility and not have access to classified materials. Senator Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his book that he wrote. As a candidate for president, should he not be held up to the same standards of a federal employee or a member of our military? As President, he is going to be exposed to an enormous amount of classified materials, have his finger on the nuke button, and be the commander in chief of the strongest military in the world. Would you not want someone in that position that can qualify for a security clearance?
Another point I would like to make is in regards to Senator Obama’s experience, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Senator McCain’s. With the world and the economy in such a delicate position, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want the most experienced person in the Whitehouse. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, have made statements to the fact that Senator Obama is not experienced enough to be President and that the presidency is not the type of job for on-the-job training. They also said that Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the table. Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Biden, even said he would even be honored to run “with” his friend John McCain. These individuals are now claiming that they said that during the primaries when they were running against Senator Obama. Does that mean they were lying then, or now? Senator Obama claimed that he had more diverse foreign policy experience because he lived overseas as a kid. Living overseas does not give you foreign policy experience, unless you are an Ambassador, which he was not. If it did, then Senator John McCain would again best Senator Obama’s record since he has lived overseas being a member of the military.
What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education? There are so many out there. Because of the current economic situation, a large number of you are going to base your decision on who is best for the economy. I would hope that I have answered this question for you earlier on in this article. Such as pointing out which candidate has promised to raise taxes and spend more reducing jobs and raising the cost to live. But just in case I have not, I have a couple additional items for you to think about. If you look at all of the campaign promises on Senator Obama’s web site, you will see hundreds of them. How is he going to pay for them? I think I answered that already. But, if you add of the costs of all of them, mathematically it is going to cost us a lot more than he will be able to raise in taxes. So many of these are going to be just like so many of his previous campaign promises – they won’t get done. Maybe the economy is not the best issue to use in making a decision for president. What about national defense? In my opinion, if you don’t have a secure nation, the rest of the issues are moot. With Russia and China outspending us two fold to build up their military; with Iran and North Korea toying around with nukes and making threats; with Russia making friends and conducting military exercises not too far from our back door in Venezuela; with Russia helping Iran build nuclear processing material plants; and with the terrorist threat growing in Pakistan (a nuclear country), Afghanistan, Africa, and several other countries throughout the world, I want the most experienced and tested person in that office. Not some junior Senator that has absolutely no experience in national security. The economy is important, but national defense is a must. Remember, if our country is not secure, then the economy means nothing, our freedom is in jeopardy, and our lives as we know them today could easily be drastically changed in a moments notice. Just ask the citizens of the country of Georgia. One last point: Have you see who is openly supporting Senator Obama in the news? Iran and the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have made public statements that they would prefer Sen. Obama to win. Go figure.
So after reading this, where do you stand? The differences in these two candidates are very apparent. On one hand, you have an individual with many years of applicable “real world” experience, has been a public servant and leader for about 50 years, has a proven record to reduce taxes and government spending, and is dedicated to growing the US economy and jobs. On the other hand, you have an individual with very little experience, questionable associations, has a proven record to increase taxes, government spending, and earmarks, and has promised to increase taxes and government spending. As I said at the beginning of this article, I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind, after doing a real comparison of the two candidates, would vote for Senator Obama. I admit, he presents himself well and has a good appearance, as long as he has a teleprompter to read from. So the bottom line is what do you want in the next president, appearance or substance?
That's one reason exactly why so many hundreds of thousands of Americans emailed and called their congressional reps and urged them to oppose the bailout. I did, and I voted for those in early voting that followed my wishes.
9-1 The American People were against the bailout. Americans are angry and will get angrier every time Congress defies the will of the people. Barack Obama will probably win the whitehouse on tuesday; but he campaigned on the platform of change. Woe be Barack Obama if there is no change come 90 days after innaugeration.
This is one of the major impetuses of my new blog project, which I am grateful that you will be participating in. The American people need to understand how government works. Your post clearly illustrates the most heinous way with the way our government DOESN'T work. If more Americans understood this, there would be far greater outrage.
Great post, Zee!
Come on. I stopped by because this was titled "Black Woman Thinks" but is it "thinking" to do what is expected of black Democrats and continue to blame Republicans for an economic crisis that they did not even create?
It would have been stimulating to witness you, in the least, playing Devil's Advocate, and then shooting your D.A. argument down. By researching the opposing viewpoint, you would, in the long run, save a lot more time and energy than what would be spent in the research.
Here, this is from a well-respected Democrat journalist:
Will the Last Honest Journalist Please Turn the Lights On
The first 6 years of the Bush administration saw an economy that was just fine -- not perfect -- but not under siege.
Thank you all for comments.
Glen: I was in 2 minds as to whether to post your comment and although I have confirmed that it is 'viral' in nature I decided to allow you to add your piece to my blog. I am not a great fan of censoring people.
Matt:
Ignorance, to me, is never a comfortable place to be and I am also keen to plug gaps in my own knowledge. I am honoured that you felt my views and ideas would be a positive addition to your new site.
Sam:
The one thing that I try not to do is to make too many assumptions about anyone that I have contact with - I'm sorry that you make assumptions about my politics. I would ask that it might help if you read a few more of my posts to 'get the giste' of my views.
Just to clarify: I am neither Republican nor Democratic and have never been a supporter of either and never will be - until/unless both parties cease to operate in a way which is against and not for the people.
If you believe that because I am black that you can tag me as 'Democrat' then I suggest there may be a need for you to broaden your horizons and consider which box you would place that view in.
If you really want to know my views regarding this election: I am appalled and horrified at the bias, unprofessional, sychophantic, vomit-inducing lack of impartiality of the mainstream media. The people of the US were misinformed, entertained by trivia and it was very clear that Obama has to win at all costs - whatever it takes. From my viewpoint I saw and see no balanced reporting. I see self-interested people and organisations promoting their own agendas.
I offer everything on my blog as a way to engage with people, share ideas and views, just as you do. At no point am I stating my views are 100% correct - even if they are strongly held and are boldly stated.
I am not having a go at you but just asking you to not jump to conclusions as it can be very damaging. Plus it doesn't help to bring people together. If you want to know what my views are then please ask. I am not someone who will bite your head off - although I am a forthright person - my aim is to bridge the stupid divides we humans have created historically and then continue to feed it to our descendants.
Thanks for stopping by everyone!
Zee.
Steve Parry/theaxisofstevil
WARNING: This man is very dangerous,please dont give him any personal info. He put my sister in the hospital after pushing her down choking her, raping her, and getting a knife threatening to kill her, luckily she ran to other room when he went to get a knife out of kitchen and she was able to call 911. He was arrested and charged with rape and domestic violence, spent 30 days in jail and charges were dropped because she didnt show up for court in fear for her life. That was the 5th time he had choked her and 2nd time he threatened to kill her. if u want to check it happened in westland,michigan.
He has also been arrested a few times for domestic violence against other women including an ex wife while she was holding there 9 month old daughter. also arrested several times for other violence while drunk even while in the marines. they put him on anti-psychotic medication, and stopped taking when left marines, they refused to let him reup for more service. he is a pathological liar,he also gave my sister an std while she was pregnant,after cheating on her. PLEASE delete this man and avoid him at all costs HE IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS this is not a joke. He was also a suspect in a string of prostitutes that had been strangled,murdered,and raped. PLEASE dont contact this man. You will be sorry if you do.
Post a Comment