Yes, There Are Deeply Angry Democratic Members of Congress

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:21


This email is from a lawmaker and it should give you a flavor for what's going on right now in Congress.

Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression (that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.

Nancy said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.

Henry Waxman has suggested corporate government reforms, including CEO compensation, as the price for this.  Some members have publicly suggested allowing modification of mortgages in bankruptcy, and the House Judiciary Committee staff is also very interested in that.  That's a real possibility.  

We may strip out all the gives to industry in the predatory mortgage lending bill that the House passed last November, which hasn't budged in the Senate, and include that in the bill.  There are other ideas on the table but they are going to be tough to work out before next week.  

I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.

I'm open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them.

Matt Stoller :: Yes, There Are Deeply Angry Democratic Members of Congress

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

awesome (4.00 / 5)
this made my day. :)
it made me smile, but more pertinently, it made me feel good that there's are democrats in congress angry enough to talk this way, even if in private.  it's also convinced me on your point on the package itself being a terrible idea and/or a political ploy.

Matt made my day by sharing this. (4.00 / 2)
I'm female and small, but I won't run away.  Listening to Dodd and Schummer, I figured they'd already been given the keys and the checkbook.  It is good to know that we have a few people in Washington who aren't cowards (or corrupt).  So where's Obama?  Anybody heard?  People are so pissed at the economy that Dems supporting Republicans on this bail out will make them stay home in droves.  It could default the election to McSame and the moose.  

[ Parent ]
i think by now we know he's a wait and see guy (0.00 / 0)
he waited-and-saw his way through the primary, so presumably he'll ride the wave and good fortune and win by a small or large amount then for years people will write about what a masterful campaign he ran :)

[ Parent ]
He's opposed the blamk check (4.00 / 2)
And has 7 principles he wants in it.  There's a diary on Kos about it (actually 2 diaries).



John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Pathetic (0.00 / 0)
IMHO, the anonymous congressman does not have the intelligence to serve in Congress, and I am ashamed to be a member of the same party. He's ready to give a $700 billion gift to Wall St., and the only thing he wants in return is... to make the execs feels bad? Are you kidding... they'll all be high-fiving each for years as they dance in their $700 billion pool of money.

This bill needs to be flat-out killed. It can't be "fixed" by imosing punitive measures on Wall St. $700 billion. Is your family really ready to send a $10,000 gift to Wall St. because President Bush told you there is a crisis?

It's all lies. More lies. It's the fear game again, and the democrats are falling for it, lock stock & barrel.

Kill this bill. No way, no how, no bailout.


[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
We're probably talking about CEOs that pay professionals to humiliate them on long week-ends in Bangkok.

Somehow, making them take an on-line credit class does quite stack up.

The letter pretty much encapsulates why we are so screwed.  Its all petty BS and personal vendetta.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
This sums up quite well (0.00 / 0)
This sums up quiet well how I feel about republicans in general. I especially like the last line.  

What we need is a class action suit (4.00 / 2)
against the boards and CEOs of all of the investment banks for 700 billion dollars, which by the way looks like this 700,000,000,000.00. Why are average Americans being asked to bail out the richest and meanest people?  At what point to we begin to call this fascism?

I've been thinking (0.00 / 0)
The problem with the bailout is that it defuses the risk necessary to the functioning of the markets-- if the big players realize that the risk they take on isn't actually risk, that they'll just get bailed out if it doesn't pay off, than there's no actual risk there.

My solution: Guantanamo treatment for the CEO of any company that blows it so bad it needs to steal from taxpayers. That brings back the risk!

/snark...sort of


[ Parent ]
they already realized there is no risk (4.00 / 3)
The S&L and other bailouts already showed the big players that profits are privatized and losses are socialized.

It's time now for punishment.  We're going to have a bad recession anyway. Might as well punish the bastards.



[ Parent ]
This is encouraging (4.00 / 3)

 And the language is just so wonderfully pissed-off. It's heartening that at least one of congresspeople is human and remembers whom he or she is supposed to represent.

 This passage caught my eye:

 

Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions.

  Does this mean we can be reasonably assured this turd won't pass? And that the Democrats are united in opposing it?

  Another point... my Republican brother told me last night that (a) this is a golden opportunity for the Democrats to leverage this crisis into a massive teachable moment for the public, and (b) after watching how Obama and McCain handled the Wall Street meltdown news, he's switched from "McCain" to "undecided".

 I responded that the Democrats would blow and squander the opportunity presented in (a), because that's what Democrats DO, but this letter gives me hope that I might be wrong. And (b) made my evening...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


I didn't see (4.00 / 5)
Dodd on This Week this morning, but from what people are saying, he seems ready to give Bush whatever he wants. Dodd, remember, is not only chair of Banking, he's a close Obama ally.

Paulson and Bush probably won't get everything they want, but if they get most of they want, it's still a massive crime.

Dodd and Bush and all the other fuckers in DC don't understand the fire they're playing with here--does Obama?

This isn't the war on Iraq, where jingoism and appeals can patriotism can keep the pitchforks at bay. The public will see this for what it is, and nothing and no one will be able to contain the anger.

If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public--all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. My advice to Washington politicians: Stop, take a deep breath and examine what you are being told to do by so-called "responsible opinion." If this deal succeeds, I predict it will become a transforming event in American politics--exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. As I have been saying for several months, this crisis has the potential to bring down one or both political parties, take your choice.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...

Will Obama lead opposition to the plan and ride the anger to victory?

Or will he back the dreadful "compromise bill" along with McCain, giving an opening to Nader, and putting his election hopes in deep jeopardy?


[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 2)

 If Obama supports this bailout as is, he'll lose the election.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
at this point (0.00 / 0)
it's going to be really hard for him to lose the election.  he would have to f@#k up hardcore or there would have to be a major event happen.

[ Parent ]
They shocked doctrined him into bending right over. (0.00 / 0)
How many times can he/they get sucker punched?

[ Parent ]
Where Do You Get Dodd Giving Bush Whatever (4.00 / 1)
I just read the quotes from the Sunday talk shows and all the Dems are saying no way to this bill w/o major changes.  They seem to agree that a bailout is inevitable but want workouts for homeowners, an economic stimulus package, caps on compensation, etc.  Frank and Shelby are suggesting new regulatory power and they will be major players on this bill.

Chuck Schumer, who is on the Banking Committee and will also be a major player on this, is suggesting that the govt get stock warrants in the companies selling the bad debt which I actually like.  You want the taxpayers to pick up your bad debt then we get a piece of your company and your future profits.  

I am not seeing capitulation here - I am seeing Congress exercising its perogatives.

Now if your goal is to see the whole thing stopped, you will be disappointed.  I don't think that is going to happen but I'd be surprised if we see a blank check given to the Secy of the Treasury either.  

FWIW - I wrote my member of Congress, who is on the Financial Services Committee, and told her to oppose this bill in its current form.
 


[ Parent ]
it occurs to me (4.00 / 9)
after reading this e-mail, that Dems could be USING this economic disaster. They could be taking the Shock Doctrine to the left and work to actively exploit the situation. Don't pass shit until we know how they're going to pay for it-- ie, make them raise the taxes now, not under President Obama. And in the spirit of the Shock Doctrine, they should attach some provisions that are unrelated but we've wanted for a long time...let's say, mandates for better gas mileage, a raise in the minimum wage, increasing veterans benefits, some investment in education and alternative energies, and criminal charges against the Bush administration.

If they agree to all that, give them the 700 gazillion dollars (raised by a tax increase on the top .01%).


Exactly (4.00 / 6)

 Do with this what Bush did with the Patriot Act -- except this time for the actual benefit of the country.

 And if the Republicans want to block populist elements to the bailout while keeping the corporatist elements, and the Democrats can't leverage THAT into a massive PR advantage, the the Democratic Party really has no reason or purpose to exist.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 10)
Give them the $700 billion but with the provision that it needs to come from the top .1%.

How do you do it?

80% wealth tax on accumulated intangible assets over $50 million.

There's your 700 billion right there.


[ Parent ]
Bernie Sanders is going there (4.00 / 11)

 He needs to be on every TV talkshow. He's the one voice of reason on this.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Hell Yes (4.00 / 1)
And the fact that Obama's Friday lunch plans included meeting with Robert Rubin instead of taking a hard stand.

They have failed.

Just as the oil shocks of the 1970s allowed Regan and Thatcher to push through neo-liberal drivel that deregulated the economy, and screwed over working people, this financial shock opens the door to push back hard.

Demand the reinstitution of Glass Stegal, push hard for increases in the minimum wage and the repeal of Taft-Hartley, renegotiate trade deals, and push for universal healthcare and free higher education.

But I don't see Obama doing this, I see him run for the middle.  And that is ultimately the reason that I'm not going to vote for him.  If we put a patch on this clusterfuck we lose the chance to cut deeper while the wound is still open  


[ Parent ]
Which lawmaker, if you don't mind me asking? (0.00 / 0)


Can you tell him/her that (4.00 / 6)
we are with them all the way.  I really mean thanks for sharing this.  A light in a storm is always welcomed.  

[ Parent ]
Also (4.00 / 2)
that I wanna have his/her baby.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Then who should I send my $ to?!! (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, if someone talked like this on the stump I'd dip into my savings.  This behavior deserves a reward.

Yeah I blog.

[ Parent ]
HAND OVER THE $700 BILLION AMERICA (4.00 / 13)
IN UNMARKED BILLS, AND NONE OF YOU BETTER GET ANY IDEAS AND TRY TO FOLLOW US, NEITHER, OR THE ECONOMY GETS IT

shock doctrine at work (4.00 / 1)
Where's Naomi Klein at? This is 100% shock doctrine, and democrats need to know that we'll call a spade a spade on this. This time they don't have excuses like 9/11 fear or even the getting elected excuse for this craven ring kissing to power and money.

They are being blatant, and they need to know that we will work to ensure accountability for their actions despite the fact that they are better than the Republican Mafia. That's an unbelievably low bar, and the democratic establishment is entirely acting like Fredo in the Godfather by betraying their family/principles/base of supporters in a desperate attempt to achieve more power. Democrats should be reminded how that worked out for Fredo as a matter of fact...


Beyond Iraq: A Time to Break Silence


Any lawmaker who stands up and says this publicly (4.00 / 6)
(with a little sanitization for public consumption) gets my public and financial support big time.

The fact that Paulsen wants immunity from criminal and civil prosecutions shows he's unfit to run any plan. Why would he ask for immunity if he weren't planning criminal acts?


I guess I'm screwed no matter what, so (4.00 / 1)
I would rather blow the sob to hell and back then to complacently give them my retirement savings and my home.  Who is it that said, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees?  Well count me in.  

[ Parent ]
Please pass along to the member of congress who wrote this: (4.00 / 3)
I will happily volunteer to hold them, but I want a couple punches myself.

No problem (4.00 / 1)
If you grab them around the neck with one arm it leaves the other in the perfect position to deliver a few to the kidneys.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Awesome. (4.00 / 1)
More like that, please.

Dean Baker (4.00 / 1)
layed out what a progressive proposal should look like:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme...


I'll hold 'em. (4.00 / 1)
You hit 'em.

or, vicey versey.

::


Please tell me there are 235 other Democrats in Congress (4.00 / 1)
who feel the same way and aren't going to cave and give Paulson everything he wants.

Yeah, this is what I'm worried about (4.00 / 1)
So far, my guess would be the email in Matt's post was written by Barney Frank, he seems the only Dem I've heard openly speaking about how bad this bailout, as proposed, really is (although I may have missed one or two elsewhere).

Strange thing is (and this is also alluded to in the email above) I'm watching Sen Shelby (R-AL)- Ranking member on Banking Committee- on TV right now and it appears he and Frank are on the same page about needed add-ons and regulations in the bailout (Frank even ended the segment with an "Amen" for Shelby!).

Can we hope that a bipartisan group of concerned lawmakers from both the progressive and conservative sides come together to demand this be a fair (fairer?) bailout?  And force the weak leadership to not just yield to a little pressure from an unpopular administration?

One can only hope.


[ Parent ]
It could be (4.00 / 1)
Steve Cohen!

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Frank Is Key (0.00 / 0)
He chairs the House Financial Services Committee - the Bush Admin can't get anything through the House w/o his support.

[ Parent ]
how about we f@#k the bipartisan shit on this one (0.00 / 0)
and just force the best possible piece of legislation that this group of democrats and moderate republicans can pass.  It's what they should have been doing all along, but the climate wasn't there and they did nothing to create it.  

You really think Bush has the chutzpah to veto legislation, do more to trigger a depression (remember, last year, they were saying everything was fine), and go down as this generation's Hoover, Nixon, and Robert McNamara all wrapped up in one while further damaging his party's prospects deeply and for the long term?  I don't think Karl Rove would let him :P


[ Parent ]
Long time reader. First time commenter. (4.00 / 2)
IMO if Obama doesn't take a strong stand against this (he is the leader of party right now) the rest of the Dems won't either.

Is Sirota concern trolling or is he right?

Still waiting for the great leap forward.


My guess... (4.00 / 1)

  ...is that this bailout will pass, pretty much unmodified, and with plenty of eager support from Democrats, who are nothing but stage props at this point in our history.

 But Obama will personally oppose it and vote against it (or miss the vote). He'll make tepid noises as to how "ill-advised" it is. McCain will oppose it too, just to show how mavericky he is. Won't matter; it'll have the votes.

 So Wall Street gets its bailout, Main Street gets fleeced again, and Obama gets to keep his "change" creds. The elites all win.

 John Dean understates the case. Our government isn't broken; it's been mauled and shredded.

 Denmark's starting to look awfully enticing...
 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
I guess html tags don't work here. (0.00 / 0)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...

Still waiting for the great leap forward.

[ Parent ]
they do (4.00 / 1)
<a href=http://someplace.com>Link</a>

=

Link


[ Parent ]
Limited Liability Levy (4.00 / 2)
Abolish the corporate income tax......

Keep on following.  

See the great issue with corporate taxation has been that they can shifts their profits overseas and declare bankruptcy (like Delphi)......

They can engage in creative accounting with tax credits so that they get money from the government........

And at the end of the day when the only liability that they have is limited to the assets that they own, even though they pay little or no taxes, and basically behave as anti-social little sobs.

So my suggestion?

Ditch the corporate income tax, it's shot through with loophole that allow companies to dodge their social obligations while sticking the public with the bill when they screw up.

Let's face it the chief benefit that the US government offers corporations is the limitation of liability, so let's recognize that the US government is in the insurance business.

And instead of taxing them, let's create a "limited liability levy" on corporate revenue, and let's be clear, this isn't earnings, this is money in hand they've gotten from their dealings.  No more of this turning a profit into loss through accounting tricks.

Charge a levy at 15% of gross revenue (again not profit) and use the spike in government funds to pay off debts, and look long term to creating universal healthcare and free higher education.

And if the corporations don't like that they've got to pay money for the privilege of having the government offer them insurance limiting their liability to funds invested, then let them try to find coverage in the private sector.

No private insurer can make that promise, and they would have to charge sky high rates if they tried.

Kill the illusion that the companies can get what they get from government in the market by letting them try.


Getting mad vs. getting even (4.00 / 3)
Yes, that was a hoot.  Though, being a Democrat, he typically lacks imagination. E.g.  a course in credit counseling as a form of humiliation?  

I would go Jiang Qing on these bastards.  Parading them in dunce caps to Grand Army Plaza where they'd be pelted with fruit while they read apologies to the millions of americans they have screwed over would be a start.

But, as Alan Grayson says, that's not the way to punish these guys.  You've got to take away the thing which they love the most and that's their money.

And that means you tax their vast accumulation of assets socked away in intangible form, bonds, T bills, derivatives etc. , as suggested above.

This is what Sanders should be pushing for: a tax on (mostly ill gotten) gains, not a tax on high incomes.

And it should be our bottom line in organizing civil disobedience, congressional office sit-ins, tax revolts and a general strike for next Mayday.

That may seem ambitious, but its the bare minimum of what's necessary.


My dream punishment (4.00 / 1)
I would take all these people and move them to Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, the Dakotas.  Any prairie state, any state whose economy lags the rest of the nation, so that would include most of the South.  

Personally, this wouldn't be a punishment for me since I grew up in a small city in the center of the country, but I want all these douchebags who think they are masters of the universe, all these assholes who have spent so much time looking down on the rest of the country, to spend the rest of their lives serving the country they have screwed so completely.  


[ Parent ]
I would sentence them to work (4.00 / 2)
as Wal Mart cashiers. Let them look into the faces of their victims all day long, while being screwed by their employer and helpless to do anything about it. Let them deal with "the baby got hurt but can we afford to take her to the emergency room with no insurance, and what are we going to do about the tires on the truck?" for the rest of their lives.

Who knows, it might make human beings out of them if we could really do it.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
i like this one (0.00 / 0)
except everyone else at wal-mart should get health insurance except for them.  And if they get sick, they should be told "oh, well you can always go to the emergency room...but we have to dock your pay."

[ Parent ]
Of course. (0.00 / 0)
In my perfect world, the SEIU will organize Wal Mart, and turn all those jobs into middle class jobs (the same way an earlier generation of labor did for manufacturing).

Except our perpetrators, because they are being punished for their sins, will be exempt. They have worked so hard to deny regular people the right to a decent life, let them spend some time seeing exactly what that is like.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
maybe we can make them work in a hog factory (0.00 / 0)
and then change the law so they're deportable without telling them and then deport them when they come to work.

[ Parent ]
The problem with that scenario is (4.00 / 1)
I wouldn't trust them to be around livestock unsupervised.

We would have to install security cameras, especially in the restrooms.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
If you REALLY want to make them suffer (4.00 / 1)
You could force them to make a living by selling laminated Bush/Cheney 2000 & 2004 bumper stickers, as mementos!
:-)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
On the street corners and in subways -- (0.00 / 0)
and every so often have the cops come and roust them out for not having to proper paperwork. After liberating them of whatever money they might have made that day.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Where are the pressure points? (4.00 / 3)
Matt- do you or your emailer know where we should be applying pressure on this? I know I will call my Sens and reps and it seems pretty clear that Dodd is up to his neck in this (and this is why Dodd never got traction in the Primary, he's just too tight with the financial interests), but who else should I be calling to try and stop this? Pelosi? Waxman?


The right question (4.00 / 4)
I'll be interested in Matt's response.  

But keep in mind the likelihood (or probably the certainty) that our representatives couldn't care less what we think on these sorts of questions and others.  What did the hundred of thousands of phone calls to Pelosi's office demanding impeachment amount to?  Zero.

The pressure point almost certainly involves organizing outside of the system-in a way that inflicts as much pain as possible on those who are making the decisions and are doing the damage.


[ Parent ]
Free Market, my butt! (0.00 / 0)
As part of this bill, I want a provision that forces anyone stating that America is a "Democratic Free Market" to forever wear a large letter "L" on the outside of his clothing so that people know that person is a low-life, scum-sucking, LIAR.

Was this written by a US Congressperson? (0.00 / 0)
A US Senator?

An assistant to one of the above?


[ Parent ]
I intended my comment above (0.00 / 0)
...to refer to the main quote in the blog-post.

[ Parent ]
Matt Stoller - can you give us a clue who wrote this? (0.00 / 0)
Male or female?

A Congressperson or an assistant?

East coast or west coast?


congressperson (0.00 / 0)
That's all I can tell you.

[ Parent ]
Can you tell us when you got it? (0.00 / 0)
last night?

today?


[ Parent ]
This is good (4.00 / 6)
There's a Class War raging in this country, and it was the rich few percent that declared war on the rest of us.

Now it's time to let them know that they're in a war.  Not only did they declare war on us, but they expect us to fight the was against ourselves.

It's especially important to make the the new regulations as punitive as possible, as the author of this letter wrote.

Now, if he just had the balls to stand up and say these things (sans obscenities, of course) on a Sunday morning talk show.  If this had been the other way, you know the Republicans would be spending every single breath berating the Democrats.


Big Shitpile (0.00 / 0)
Here's somebody who makes some sense-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I worry about those members of Congress who feel they must DO SOMETHING NOW. They are freaked out and scared and likely to get suckered into voting for some godawful bailout arrangement that lets the hustlers on Wall St. cover their ass before cleaning out their desks and leaving town in the dark of night.


Mystery Emailer...Meh! (4.00 / 3)
Says he's not voting for a blank check, raises some possible tepid reforms, then notes that such reform stuff will be tough to work out in a week...translation:  This a piece of crap, I'm thoroughly pissed, but as long as they throw in a few sops to the masses I will end up voting for this massive crime against the people anyway.

We are witnessing the run up to a grand looting of our nation perpetrated by a new dictatorship of the Treasury Secy.  This guy obviously knows it, but rather than rounding up his equally angry buddies, passing out the pitchforks and rushing the gates of the Congressional leadership's  offices, he chooses to send anonymous faux-courageous emails.   I really hope more is going on behind the scenes, but certainly am not holding my breath given the reports from the Sunday talk-fests.

So here's my idea, Mr. Anonymous, stop waiting for someone to make sense.  It seems no leader--not Pelosi, not Reid, not Dodd, not Frank, and not Obama-- is prepared to come riding in and take the Hill.   Put down your lap-top, organize your equally angry brethren and damn-it storm the castle.  The people are with you.  They will follow your lead.


Dang you're durned near as cynical as me, gurl...You GO! (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
A Line That Might Be Helpful During The Debate On This Bullshit (4.00 / 2)
Approximately this:

"After three investment banks have failed due to reckless, dangerous investments, the Bush administration now is demanding that American taxpayers give $700 billion of their money to the former CEO of investment bank Goldman Sachs to give away as he sees fit to the same banks that got us into this mess--without any oversight from anyone, ever.  This is the the most dangerous idea I've ever heard, and it will slash the throat of the American taxpayer."

The second line's a populist messaging freebie.  It's the first line, or some variation of it, that's key.  Maybe I'm overestimating my own idea, but I think stating the fact that we want to hand the former CEO of an investment bank $700 billion to give away as he sees fit--with no oversight from anyone, ever--would help drive home the insanity of this proposal to the public.


Yes, the bill prevents judicial review... (0.00 / 0)
...no matter how corrupt or negligent the Bush Administration acts with our money.

===========================================
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.
===========================================


[ Parent ]
Continuation (0.00 / 0)
Continuing the statement:

Those negotiating the passage of what is objectively a massive theft from tens of millions of working families are banking on the assurance that they will be able to do so without interference from those on whom they are treating with demonstrable contempt.

It is our intention to make clear that there will be consequences-severe ones-ones which will impact the bottom line of major domestic corporations, the positions of those negotiating the buy out and the economic and social stability of the upper income groups whose interests they serve.

In furtherance of this objective, the undersigned individuals and organizations commit themselves to engaging in some or all of the following possible acts of protest should the bailout materialize in anything resembling its existing exploitative form.

* mass demonstrations on Wall Street with the intention of disrupting all activity in the New York stock exchange

* acts of sabotage directed at those corporations whose present and former management are most directly complicit in the bailout

* a one week long general strike beginning on May 1, 2009

* non payment of federal income tax for the year 2008

This is to serve notice that these and other unspecified actions are sure to materialize should the bailout precede.

In short, you will be held responsible for your actions.

Sincerely,


[ Parent ]
The 1990s de-regulation laws should be repealed. (0.00 / 0)
Repeal:

a)  "The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" which let savings banks, investment banks, and insurance companies merge.

b)  "The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995" which made it more difficult for investors to get information on the corporations they invested in.


About six or eight months ago (0.00 / 0)
I was talking to a financial adviser about this and I told him that if I had my way, finance workers wouldn't be able to look out a window w/o filing three forms.  He thought that was excessive.  I still don't.

As for this email, it's great but if the member isn't going to go public and get support from leadership than it's nothing but a rant.  Dodd was all about the FISA and that got us nowhere.   People - especially lawmakers - need to be in the streets.


Lotsa talk-talk, nokinda walk-walk (4.00 / 2)
I'm open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them.

Me! I'll hold 'em. And kick'em in the balls.

But the e-mailer's just full of crap...

Sounds sweet, just imagining somebody's even thinking those thoughts...

Talk's cheap...Anonymous talk's even cheaper--just ask us: we blog...


We Have Been Fooled Before, I Say Not So Fast! (0.00 / 0)
I don't know why we have to move so fast to  Quickly pass a $700 billion bailout to Corporations of their bad debts, all without any regulation or oversight!  "How did we get here? All of a sudden we are facing Armageddon in our financial systems, one day they tell us our economy is fundamentally sound and the next day we're here. King Paulson is asking for the power to make decisions that would be unchecked by Congress, the ability to buy whatever he wants. He is now saying foreign banks should be able to use this program. American tax money we don't have. If this really affects global financial systems, why isn't the rest of the world putting up their balance sheets? Why does American continue trying to do everything by it self? Here we go again, what does this sound like? This sounds like 2001 and 2002 all over again, a time when the Congress gave the President broad powers to fight the war on terrorism, powers that they couldn't get back. WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL!

One of the reasons our government has been free of major problems is the checks and balances designed to ensure major crises are well thought out. Look at the major events of the 20th century, in World War I, President Wilson realized our nation couldn't avoid the war but he made sure that he got the American people behind him, convinced them they should sacrifice for the greater good. In World War II we had the same thing, however, after 9/11 the president told the people they shouldn't change their way of life, he told them they should go shopping.  Trillions of dollars have been sent to Iraq and now Americans cannot afford the gas for their cars and the mortgage on their homes. Under this administration, we continue to find our nation in crises, we continue reacting instead of acting, and now they are asking for more unchecked powers, WE MUST  BE VERY VERY CAREFUL."  

Due to no regulation and short certificate buying, no one knows what loan belongs to who and they may never know. How can that be? It sounds fishy and criminal, and now corporations who are suffering a metl down want to save their own hides on the backs of the American people. We cannot allow this to happen to us again and again -- corporations first, people never.  This time it must be people first!

We cannot allow ourselves to be pushed into this decesion based on fear and scare tactics. We must carefully and thoughtfully try to find our way out that will benefit the people this time and not just the corporations, who are only trying to save their wealth, their stocks, their homes, cars, and their Country Club First, way of life.

Trickle down economics cannot work because it is against the laws of nature. In nature we start/build from the bottom up, etc. a plant, a tree, a child. And when we build homes or cars we start from the bottom and expand up or outwards and that is how we should model our business dealings. We cannot work against nature's wisdom and intelligence by hoping things will trickle down. It is just not sensible. We have an intelligent design through nature and we should use her model not man's greed. It is very hard for me to trust the people who got us into this mess to somehow now be able to get us out of this mess. That too does not make sense!  We must contact our Congressman and Senators and tell them NOT SO FAST!


Pour encourager les autres (0.00 / 0)
Remember Admiral Byng, and send a few Wall Street executives and board members down to the Battery.

Set up to fail. (0.00 / 0)
Washington is a snake pit. Google Catherine Austin Fitts (see especially her interaction with Jack Kemp). Does anybody really think EVERYBODY in Washington and Wall Street couldn't see what was coming?

And if you want to get a sense of just how deep the rabbit hole goes, google Walter Burien. US governments (plural: not just federal, but also state, county and local) are keeping 2 sets of books. Burien estimated the total value of the public/private entities detailed in the CAFR's as worth over $60 Trillion dollars. And here's an infuriating punchline - as higher returns on investments could be made overseas, privately controlled public/private entities moved assets (and jobs) out of the US. The sucker is John Q. Public, who helped fund the demise of his own job prospects.

You don't have to be a financial guru to see that $700 Billion is small potatoes compared to $60 Trillion....

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


Could you put me in touch with the noble congressperson? (4.00 / 1)
Hi Matt,

Could you forward my information to the congressperson?  I would be more than happy to volunteer to hold the bastards down.  And the truth is that I don't have anything better to do.  My job was outsourced to India and as a result, my home is almost finished with the foreclosure process and that leaves...pretty much nothing I can't take a break from.  Plus, I'm pretty strong and mighty pissed.


To a class?? (0.00 / 0)
So, we're about to write a blank check to the tune of 1 trillion dollars (that's $10,000 per household folks!) and your democratic congressmen is so hopping mad that he's going to send the executives to a class???? WTF?

It's no wonder Republicans call Democrats pussies!

Why not try this. Any company applying for this bailout must commit to $0 compensation, $0 parachutes and resignation within a year of every executive at the company. Then we'll see who really 'needs' the bailout.

I don't even think the bailout is necessary. First off there is a market for these toxic securities, people are willing to pay 'fair market value' for them, it's just that the banks want the same price as if it was 2006 and houses were worth 30% more. Second, the folks who would be hurt if there wasn't a bailout would be the bankers and brokers who caused this whole problem. The folks hurt most if there is a bailout are you and me, the typical American.

Everyone here should be writing and calling their senator to block this free money to the crooks who created this problem in the first place.


You want a real answer? (0.00 / 0)
I've got one.

Go over to http://fedupusa.org

There are two 10 minute YouTube videos there, along with a white paper sent to ALL 535 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS in July, along with a letter to ALL Senate Banking Committee members sent LAST NIGHT.

They do this, the crisis is over and the TAXPAYER IS PROTECTED.

If you want to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE, this is how you do it, but you have to do it NOW.


I distrust about 430 of these 435 in the House (0.00 / 0)
I trust Donna Edwards.  I trust Bernie Sanders.  I WANT to trust Barney Frank, which means I don't and it hurts.

$700 billion dollars will not fly.  My concern is that Pelosi will get it negotiated to $665 and declare victory.  A half billion dollars, say, of pork/grease/baksheesh in a purple district is hard to turn down.  It builds a lot of subway track miles and tunnels, a lot of highways, a lot of "new jobs in your district." So they can peel $15 billion dollars off and get the votes they need.  No Bridge to Nowhere - how about a subway to City Hall?  Some urban redevelopment money?  A new DHS office in your district?

So I am awfully glad that we have one magnificent bastard lawmaker (Barney Frank?  Please????) who wants to batter the shit out of these people.  Count me as a volunteer.  I'll bring the pliers and blowtorches.  Socialism is for billionaires who didn't watch their empires; capitalism, I guess, is for my autistic children, for my elderly mother with two messed up knees.

I used to be a libertarian.  Big L.  Party officer.  Really.  Ten years it took.  Now I want to take the 28 year old me behind the toolshed and beat the shit out of him.  Of course, I am 39 and out of shape so it wouldn't be a fair fight.

The question is what kind of socialism we are going to have: the kind that protects Ivy League grads who collude in a corrupt Ponzi scheme, or the kind that protects children from their parents' mistakes or shortcomings.  "No socialism" is off the table.  Blowtorches, for me, aren't.

I always wanted to visit Argentina.  Appears that Argentina has come to visit us.  And she brought her furniture.

/rant.


Let's Make a Deal (0.00 / 0)
How about we raise the federal minimum wage from $6.55 per hour to $10.00 per hour?  Seems fair.  We could squeeze these guys (if the Dems have the b@11s).

If this letter characterizes thw "opposition" party (0.00 / 0)
The Congress is being led by a junior hugh student.

Revenge, beating, vendetta, a sophmoric humiliation, that's no vision for a future, is it?



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


Reduce Executive Compensation by the percent of the companies assets the Treasury purchases (0.00 / 0)
Reduce the total Compensation Package(s) for all senior executive officers of the companies that are bailed out by the percent of the companies assets the Treasury purchases. Cap the Compensation Package(s) to that amount and eliminate Golden Parachutes until the debt has been paid off.  

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox