Posts
Or, Finding Fault with Our Financial Finagling
Let’s see if I understand the 12 (or maybe 13) digit bailout of private companies that has been proposed and administered by the Bush Administration using public funds. Its provisions seem to be:
• Little if any due diligence in advance of giveaway of public money.
• No independent audits of the private companies getting the public money.
• No appraisals of private assets being acquired by the public money.
• Limited or non existent documentation accompanying the giveaway of the public money.
• Few, if any, restrictions on how the public money was to be used.
• No voting control on the equity positions in private companies purchased with the public money.
• Little collateralization or protection of the loans to private companies made with the public money.
• No personal guarantees by the private management or shareholders receiving the giveaways of public money.
• No enforcement of what few written loan and/or equity purchase documents might exist.
• No assurance the public money would be or was used as authorized or promised to the taxpayers and Congress.
• Little if any direct help for the distressed homeowners for which the public money was set aside.
• No change in the bankruptcy laws either restricting creditors or helping mislead debtors.
• No serious efforts at prevention of bonuses or huge salaries for CEOs or other top management in charge being funded by public money.
• No serious efforts at prevention of the public money being used by private companies merely to acquire competitors.
• No investigation of what went wrong and who was responsible or even whether the means and methods were justified before spending a sum of public money that large.
• Little or no new regulation to reinstitute conservative (small “c”); i.e. safe, lending traditions.
• Little or no increase in staff and budgets of the regulatory and enforcement agencies.
• No removal of those individuals in government or the private companies whose decisions ultimately lead to the fiascos necessitating bailout.
• No prosecution or punishment of apparent criminal fraud and misrepresentation within the private companies being bailed out with the public money.
• No tracking of whether the methods were successful (and, by “success” it is not meant just putting massive amounts of the public money in the private hands of the already rich who were probably instigated or perpetuated the mess).
• No reporting to and receiving permission from Congress before the Treasury Secretary chose to unilaterally modify the use of the public funds.
• Not even disclosure of who received the public funds, how much, why or how.
Surely, a recipe for fraud, misappropriation and, more importantly, more of the same.
When “Heckofajob” Brownie was fired from FEMA after Katrina, did Treasury hire him?
All kidding aside, the government lawyers who drafted the Bailout documentation should be investigated for possible ethics violations and certainly for gross incompetence. Disbarment ought to be considered given how badly this has been bungled from the beginning. They must have gotten their law degree from schools that advertise on matchbooks.
Changing the watchdogs who failed in their duties is only part of what needs to be done. One of the primary reasons for our latest titanic financial disaster was deliberate and massive obfuscation. How can you regulate something if you can't see what is going on? How can even the active participants involved (buyers, sellers, borrowers, managers, investors) make an intelligent decision one way or the other if they don't have access to critical facts? Hell, how can even speculators adequately analyze risk versus reward without reliance that the data provided is not deceptive? It becomes more akin to a pure gamble, a bet against house loaded dice, rather then a well considered investment. Adam Smith’s Capitalism can fair, but as he pointed out, the data upon which it is based must not be false or misleading and available to all.
The reckless greedy thieves in charge of our financial institutions prior to the 1980s Saving & Loan Industry debacle, the even more reckless and greedier thieves in charge of the late 1990s tech stock bubble and the most reckless, greediest conceivable thieves of all in charge for the past decade prevented that by doing everything possible to hide what they could and mislabel what they couldn't. That strategy was combined with a condescending paternalism that they knew best; that we couldn't possibly understand; and that anyone who even asked, let alone complained, was ignorant or a “socialist.” Together those thing set the stage for utter disaster.
The misdirection and slight-of-hand was rampant and pervasive. If it had not been for the false labeling, even the village idiot, possibly even George Bush, could have recognized that you should not give a $400,000 house loan with no money down to someone out of a job and with rotten credit. That was not how it was presented to the unsuspecting public though. And, the ponzi scheme worked, worked for the perpetrators anyway, right up to the point when it was too late because the debt had come due.
The blame cannot be wholly assigned to the criminals on Wall Street, the stock brokerages, the bank headquarters and the insurance execs. They had the nasty example of Congress and the White House who do the same obfuscation with the federal budget. The national budget is not even close to being a real representation of the country’s income and expenses. Social Security, war in Iraq funds, all kinds of other things are “off budget,” called other things. Then there is the voluminous set of special tax code provisions where benefits to campaign contributors and fellow travelers are hidden in obscure, almost indecipherable clauses.
Politics as usual in Washington demonstrates that lying to the voter is okay and will not be punished or even closely scrutinized. Politicians do it because if the voters actually knew how they were being ripped off and lied to might vote for someone else. The Iraq War for instance? It would appear that it is free of cost. Someone else is supposed to pay for it, certainly not us. Our grandchildren apparently, not current taxpayers. Something for nothing dominates the centers of power, especially now that the Republicans ferreted out all bureaucrats who still had a sense of honor and foolishly believed in honoring their oath of office.
Why wouldn’t we expect Wall Street to follow the same path? The almost funny part is that they got so greedy, so caught up in their raping and pillaging while they burnt down their own structures, some of them forgot to get out of the fast enough. After a while, they could not even understand their own con schemes.
How to finally prevent this sort of chicanery? Obviously, lots more regulators and the staff and funding to let them do their job and the freedom to do so. Let the states and municipal governments enforce as well rather than federal only jurisdiction that the current Administration insisted upon.
That is not nearly enough though. If there are no adverse consequences to those malefactors who lead us into this cesspool, it will assuredly happen again. So, use the RICO laws regarding criminal conspiracy to seize their assets (the good assets as well as the worthless ones they want to stick the taxpayers with). In fact, use the Patriot Act and other sedition laws to go after them for endangering the national security. Try them as criminals. Maybe send them to Gitmo for a vacation. They after all have proven themselves far more dangerous to this country’s future security than any insurgents captured on a battlefield. Also, take back their bonuses and salaries which we know realize were obtained under false pretenses. Most importantly, impeach the politicians who aided and abetted them.
Why try them for treason? Keep in mind, the cutbacks in health care, port security, and military preparedness that will be caused by these astronomical losses are going to ultimately kill more people than the 9/11 terrorists dared dream.
Most importantly, get back to fundamentals with transparency of financials especially of the books and records of those spending money of others, with true independence of investigators and auditors, with clarity and ease of understanding documentation and with new and strong penalties for ignoring common sense in the future.
Showing posts with label financial follies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial follies. Show all posts
2008/11/16
2008/10/30
“THEN WHAT?”
Or, What to Do with the Enormous Mess Left Behind by the Bush Administration
Bush is neither out of office, impeached nor imprisoned yet (although he deserves to be all three). And, we need to continue to concentrate on that fact since in the agonizing months remaining, he unfortunately can continue doing incalculable harm to our troops, our treasury, our health, our economy, our Constitution, our other laws and treaties, our morale, our prestige and our reputation.
Now is the time to insure those seeking the job commit on the things necessary to clean up the political toxic waste spewed behind Bush and his co-conspirators in seemingly unending piles of offal. As much as we would prefer to simply put the unpleasantness behind us, we cannot. If we do not dramatically, publically spotlight and undo the damage, if people are not punished for their attempted putsch to topple us into a perpetual dictatorship controlled by a small group of Neocons, then some successor might someday claim under some pretext that it’s okay to repeat some or all of what the Bushites practiced. There is always the risk that next time it might not be a barely articulate bumbler attempting it. Using the same techniques, but less clumsily so, someone else could have successfully accomplished the coup d’état which is obviously what the Neocons had in mind.
No, we must ferret out and undo everything, absolutely everything, Bush has done since being illegally placed in power by the five Republicans appointed to the Supreme Court. To begin with, expressly repeal every law sponsored by those in Bush’s cabal, officially terminate all his executive orders, and denounce each so-called “signing statement” purporting to amend laws Bush didn’t happen to like. To drive the point home, perhaps we should even ask some of the recipients of his “Medal of Freedom” like L. Paul Bremer III, Tommy Franks and George Tenant, three of the idiots responsible for the Iraq occupation fiasco, to return their medals on the grounds they were awarded the “honors” on false pretenses.
Once Bush’s paperwork is formally canceled and his camp followers removed, we can start over re-examining each item to see which, if any, merit reasoned consideration. This re-examination, the second half of the cleansing procedure or perhaps more appropriately triage, needs to be followed through because we do not want to be like Bush and his Neocons, automatically rejecting for all eternity anything originating from the other side solely because it came from the other side. There might be something or someone useful to salvage.
There is probably little worthy of reclamation. After all, even the titles of many of Bush’s laws are really just deceptions, the exact opposite of what was actually intended by the various Neocon drafters or, more appropriately Neocon obscurers. Egregious examples of the Bush legislative excesses include the so-called Patriot Act, perhaps the most unpatriotic act of all our history. Or, just look at some of the lofty names the Bush folks came up with for their subterfuges like the Healthy Forest Initiative, the Bankruptcy Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Clear Skies Initiative. Then, compare how such legislation was used by this Administration once it got it passed. Still, the effort to search for something worth saving must be made. It should be done in an adult matter applying cost/benefit analysis to each and every one which was always missing when the Bush White House was in charge.
In addition to removing the written framework for Bush’s excesses, every single person in the Bush Administration implementing them should be removed. Everyone ever recommended for office during Bush’s tenure must be required to tender a resignation, starting with those in charge of funds, troops, contracts and regulators. Possible exceptions might be those who were in place already prior to Bush’s being crowned king, those who subsequently quit in disgust or disillusionment and those who were fired because of whistle blowing or not being sufficiently loyal to Bush personally. Those removed should never again be allowed in positions of power and trust unless and until they can affirmatively prove they are worthy of it or a reconciliation council is set up similar to the concept used in Mandela’s South Africa working its way out of apartheid.
Yes, it’s “profiling” of a sorts, but it’s not an illegal or unconstitutional profiling since this particular reason for discriminating is not among the constitutionally prohibited list. Consequently, Bush’s favorites can be treated with suspicion that they were active and knowing participants in the attempt to overthrow our democracy. An investigation of their finances and conduct should be undertaken to determine whether that was so. Maybe we can recover some of the trillions stolen, diverted, lost or wasted. Lots of prosecutors and investigators should be hired and their offices fully staffed and funded to facilitate the investigation. To insure the message is received that this should not happen again, let’s convict and jail some for crimes like torture and conflict of interest. Unlike how the Bush Administration has conducted litigation, the defendants here should be allowed the benefits of legal counsel, habeas corpus, bail, confrontation of accusers and all the other civil rights in open court that have been shelved these past several years. Once again, the effort should be to dissuade violations of the Constitution from reoccurring whenever wannabe warlords are squatting in the Oval Office.
Detractors might argue that mass removal of Republican bureaucrats and functionaries would eliminate a large group from the pool of potential public officials and might diminish the general caliber of replacement future appointees. In normal circumstances that might be true, as turned out to be the case when even the most nominally Baathist Party members were banned in Iraq. However, the arrogantly hapless and often malicious ideologues that tended to flock to the Bush banner from the dark recesses of the Republican Party have proven to be so horrifyingly harmful, it would appear replacements selected at random out of the phone book could hardly be worse. Let’s have higher standards for hiring their replacements, although that is a very low bar given all the “Heckofajob Brownies” that were installed. The party affiliation should not be a criteria. In the Justice Department for instance, the hirees should be those with the best grades. For judges nominated, let’s start looking at the non partisan American Bar Association recommendations again to see who will be the best judges, not the best zealots.
Moreover, new laws should be put in place to forbid former officials of all sorts from becoming lobbyists for at least six years after they were in office. We don’t want Democrats taking advantage that way anymore either.
Maybe every appointee should be required to pass the same test new citizens must pass and must show they can add a column of figures and come up with the same answer twice running. We definitely should indicate that their oath of office in which they swear to defend the Constitution does not mean party or personal loyalty comes first. We also need to affirm that violations of the oath have consequences.
We must investigate every contract entered into by the Bush Administration with private companies, especially the no-bid contracts that were awarded to companies which were campaign contributors of Bush or were companies in which Bush officials held stock. It will be like turning over rocks to reveal the slugs and bugs skittering away from the harsh light of day.
Corruption, bribery, profiteering and gouging should be punished and severely so for both the companies who profited and the individual officers and officials on both sides of the transaction. Failure to perform timely or otherwise should be grounds for seeking damages for breach of contract. Instead of ignoring costly nonperformance, let’s require it be done as promised or force disgorgement of the ill gotten lucre.
More importantly, perhaps the General Accounting Office should investigate whether we need some of the contracts at all. For instance, why do we need to pay Blackwater guards in Iraq five times what we pay our own troops for the identical tasks? Why should Blackwater employees be given immunity in advance from all laws for whatever they might do? To the extent possible, we should get out of such contracts immediately and move such contractors to the bottom of the list, if at all, for future work.
Lots of regulators should be hired to once again insure the safety of our air, water, food, toys, etc. For each, we should be conservative (small “c”) because so much is at risk with each. Greater conservatism (small “c” again) should be practiced once again with our bank deposits and our resources.
What else should be done to prevent a repeat of not only the tragedies of 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, the Bush Recession, global warming, and the dissipation of our military? For one, we need some new laws to insure no more voting fraud by paperless hackable electronic voting machines. We need some better laws on campaign financing to stop buying of elections. We need some new laws to insure government transparency and less secrecy, at least less secrecy designed solely to cover up malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. Maybe we need to go back to the old equal time rules on access to the media in political campaigns. We certainly need to find a way to have less centralization of the news, the airwaves and bandwidth. Maybe we need to think about enacting something like the European Vote of No Confidence to oust dangerous Presidents prior to the end of their term. Maybe we need a “None of the Above” opportunity on voting to allow a different slate of candidates to stand for election. We definitely need better debates. Perhaps let the League of Women Voters run some again and ignore the pressure from the candidates. Definitely let the minority parties participate.
We need to start obeying once again our international treaties we long ago agreed to like the Geneva Conventions and the Kyoto Accords. Maybe we should disbar the attorneys who asserted we did not have to do so.
Without question, we need to reduce the temptations for foreign adventuresome. On the top of the list should be a reduction of the need to use petroleum for fuel. Both conservation and alternative sources of energy should get the subsidies and priorities that oil production and ethanol does now.
We definitely need to get out of Iraq. We can save a little face by saying we’ll be back if the country acts up again or actually attacks us or invades Israel or others. That’s probably what we should have done the moment we seized Saddam anyway. It would not have justified our highly illegal invasion without cause, but at least it would not have subsequently revealed our serious vulnerabilities and our utter inability to govern Middle Eastern countries from afar. There will be pain getting out. On the other hand, it will be less than the pain and cost of staying forever. Besides, we got kicked out of Vietnam. They were as fiercely suicidal as the Muslims, but none of them followed us home once we left their country.
Perhaps we should stand up and apologize to the rest of the world for being such jerks for the past eight years. Maybe we should turn Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld over to international tribunals to see if they are war criminals. That might go a long way toward showing we mean it when we say we are sorry.
The bottom line is that it will take effort and expense to eliminate the rot that is infesting us. We must fumigate the entire house so to speak. Unfortunately, unless we dig it all out now, the infestation will spread and the entire house might collapse.
Bush is neither out of office, impeached nor imprisoned yet (although he deserves to be all three). And, we need to continue to concentrate on that fact since in the agonizing months remaining, he unfortunately can continue doing incalculable harm to our troops, our treasury, our health, our economy, our Constitution, our other laws and treaties, our morale, our prestige and our reputation.
Now is the time to insure those seeking the job commit on the things necessary to clean up the political toxic waste spewed behind Bush and his co-conspirators in seemingly unending piles of offal. As much as we would prefer to simply put the unpleasantness behind us, we cannot. If we do not dramatically, publically spotlight and undo the damage, if people are not punished for their attempted putsch to topple us into a perpetual dictatorship controlled by a small group of Neocons, then some successor might someday claim under some pretext that it’s okay to repeat some or all of what the Bushites practiced. There is always the risk that next time it might not be a barely articulate bumbler attempting it. Using the same techniques, but less clumsily so, someone else could have successfully accomplished the coup d’état which is obviously what the Neocons had in mind.
No, we must ferret out and undo everything, absolutely everything, Bush has done since being illegally placed in power by the five Republicans appointed to the Supreme Court. To begin with, expressly repeal every law sponsored by those in Bush’s cabal, officially terminate all his executive orders, and denounce each so-called “signing statement” purporting to amend laws Bush didn’t happen to like. To drive the point home, perhaps we should even ask some of the recipients of his “Medal of Freedom” like L. Paul Bremer III, Tommy Franks and George Tenant, three of the idiots responsible for the Iraq occupation fiasco, to return their medals on the grounds they were awarded the “honors” on false pretenses.
Once Bush’s paperwork is formally canceled and his camp followers removed, we can start over re-examining each item to see which, if any, merit reasoned consideration. This re-examination, the second half of the cleansing procedure or perhaps more appropriately triage, needs to be followed through because we do not want to be like Bush and his Neocons, automatically rejecting for all eternity anything originating from the other side solely because it came from the other side. There might be something or someone useful to salvage.
There is probably little worthy of reclamation. After all, even the titles of many of Bush’s laws are really just deceptions, the exact opposite of what was actually intended by the various Neocon drafters or, more appropriately Neocon obscurers. Egregious examples of the Bush legislative excesses include the so-called Patriot Act, perhaps the most unpatriotic act of all our history. Or, just look at some of the lofty names the Bush folks came up with for their subterfuges like the Healthy Forest Initiative, the Bankruptcy Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Clear Skies Initiative. Then, compare how such legislation was used by this Administration once it got it passed. Still, the effort to search for something worth saving must be made. It should be done in an adult matter applying cost/benefit analysis to each and every one which was always missing when the Bush White House was in charge.
In addition to removing the written framework for Bush’s excesses, every single person in the Bush Administration implementing them should be removed. Everyone ever recommended for office during Bush’s tenure must be required to tender a resignation, starting with those in charge of funds, troops, contracts and regulators. Possible exceptions might be those who were in place already prior to Bush’s being crowned king, those who subsequently quit in disgust or disillusionment and those who were fired because of whistle blowing or not being sufficiently loyal to Bush personally. Those removed should never again be allowed in positions of power and trust unless and until they can affirmatively prove they are worthy of it or a reconciliation council is set up similar to the concept used in Mandela’s South Africa working its way out of apartheid.
Yes, it’s “profiling” of a sorts, but it’s not an illegal or unconstitutional profiling since this particular reason for discriminating is not among the constitutionally prohibited list. Consequently, Bush’s favorites can be treated with suspicion that they were active and knowing participants in the attempt to overthrow our democracy. An investigation of their finances and conduct should be undertaken to determine whether that was so. Maybe we can recover some of the trillions stolen, diverted, lost or wasted. Lots of prosecutors and investigators should be hired and their offices fully staffed and funded to facilitate the investigation. To insure the message is received that this should not happen again, let’s convict and jail some for crimes like torture and conflict of interest. Unlike how the Bush Administration has conducted litigation, the defendants here should be allowed the benefits of legal counsel, habeas corpus, bail, confrontation of accusers and all the other civil rights in open court that have been shelved these past several years. Once again, the effort should be to dissuade violations of the Constitution from reoccurring whenever wannabe warlords are squatting in the Oval Office.
Detractors might argue that mass removal of Republican bureaucrats and functionaries would eliminate a large group from the pool of potential public officials and might diminish the general caliber of replacement future appointees. In normal circumstances that might be true, as turned out to be the case when even the most nominally Baathist Party members were banned in Iraq. However, the arrogantly hapless and often malicious ideologues that tended to flock to the Bush banner from the dark recesses of the Republican Party have proven to be so horrifyingly harmful, it would appear replacements selected at random out of the phone book could hardly be worse. Let’s have higher standards for hiring their replacements, although that is a very low bar given all the “Heckofajob Brownies” that were installed. The party affiliation should not be a criteria. In the Justice Department for instance, the hirees should be those with the best grades. For judges nominated, let’s start looking at the non partisan American Bar Association recommendations again to see who will be the best judges, not the best zealots.
Moreover, new laws should be put in place to forbid former officials of all sorts from becoming lobbyists for at least six years after they were in office. We don’t want Democrats taking advantage that way anymore either.
Maybe every appointee should be required to pass the same test new citizens must pass and must show they can add a column of figures and come up with the same answer twice running. We definitely should indicate that their oath of office in which they swear to defend the Constitution does not mean party or personal loyalty comes first. We also need to affirm that violations of the oath have consequences.
We must investigate every contract entered into by the Bush Administration with private companies, especially the no-bid contracts that were awarded to companies which were campaign contributors of Bush or were companies in which Bush officials held stock. It will be like turning over rocks to reveal the slugs and bugs skittering away from the harsh light of day.
Corruption, bribery, profiteering and gouging should be punished and severely so for both the companies who profited and the individual officers and officials on both sides of the transaction. Failure to perform timely or otherwise should be grounds for seeking damages for breach of contract. Instead of ignoring costly nonperformance, let’s require it be done as promised or force disgorgement of the ill gotten lucre.
More importantly, perhaps the General Accounting Office should investigate whether we need some of the contracts at all. For instance, why do we need to pay Blackwater guards in Iraq five times what we pay our own troops for the identical tasks? Why should Blackwater employees be given immunity in advance from all laws for whatever they might do? To the extent possible, we should get out of such contracts immediately and move such contractors to the bottom of the list, if at all, for future work.
Lots of regulators should be hired to once again insure the safety of our air, water, food, toys, etc. For each, we should be conservative (small “c”) because so much is at risk with each. Greater conservatism (small “c” again) should be practiced once again with our bank deposits and our resources.
What else should be done to prevent a repeat of not only the tragedies of 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, the Bush Recession, global warming, and the dissipation of our military? For one, we need some new laws to insure no more voting fraud by paperless hackable electronic voting machines. We need some better laws on campaign financing to stop buying of elections. We need some new laws to insure government transparency and less secrecy, at least less secrecy designed solely to cover up malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. Maybe we need to go back to the old equal time rules on access to the media in political campaigns. We certainly need to find a way to have less centralization of the news, the airwaves and bandwidth. Maybe we need to think about enacting something like the European Vote of No Confidence to oust dangerous Presidents prior to the end of their term. Maybe we need a “None of the Above” opportunity on voting to allow a different slate of candidates to stand for election. We definitely need better debates. Perhaps let the League of Women Voters run some again and ignore the pressure from the candidates. Definitely let the minority parties participate.
We need to start obeying once again our international treaties we long ago agreed to like the Geneva Conventions and the Kyoto Accords. Maybe we should disbar the attorneys who asserted we did not have to do so.
Without question, we need to reduce the temptations for foreign adventuresome. On the top of the list should be a reduction of the need to use petroleum for fuel. Both conservation and alternative sources of energy should get the subsidies and priorities that oil production and ethanol does now.
We definitely need to get out of Iraq. We can save a little face by saying we’ll be back if the country acts up again or actually attacks us or invades Israel or others. That’s probably what we should have done the moment we seized Saddam anyway. It would not have justified our highly illegal invasion without cause, but at least it would not have subsequently revealed our serious vulnerabilities and our utter inability to govern Middle Eastern countries from afar. There will be pain getting out. On the other hand, it will be less than the pain and cost of staying forever. Besides, we got kicked out of Vietnam. They were as fiercely suicidal as the Muslims, but none of them followed us home once we left their country.
Perhaps we should stand up and apologize to the rest of the world for being such jerks for the past eight years. Maybe we should turn Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld over to international tribunals to see if they are war criminals. That might go a long way toward showing we mean it when we say we are sorry.
The bottom line is that it will take effort and expense to eliminate the rot that is infesting us. We must fumigate the entire house so to speak. Unfortunately, unless we dig it all out now, the infestation will spread and the entire house might collapse.
2008/10/24
"THE WOULD HAVE BEENS, COULD HAVE BEENS, SHOULD HAVE BEENS OF TAXES"
Or, It's Not the Fact We Are Taxed, It's How the Conservatives Waste Our Taxes
Oh yeah. The eternal drum beat by so-called "Conservatives" of no new taxes makes soooooooo much sense. Especially when they are the ones spending taxes faster than the Treasury can count the revenue. Judging by what Conservatives do as opposed to what they say, they apparently want to try and show government can't possibly work. They're right. . . at least as to a government run by what passes for Conservatives these days.
After all, we could be providing health care for all children like most civilized nations do. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead wasting our troops killing and maiming foreigners so we can occupy their country in a pointless war commenced on admitted false justifications?
And, if we must send our troops to fight in wrongheaded wars, we could provide them with adequate armor, sufficient supplies, enough reinforcements, treatment for wounds, and the post service education they were promised. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead for wasteful, too often unworkable, pork barrel "Star Wars" projects benefitting only the CEOs of the military/industrial complex?
We could be providing for regulators to insure that stupidity, greed and duplicity does not occur in our financial institutions. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead to reimburse wall street bankers and stockbrokers for their stupidity, greed, and duplicity?
We could be providing a small amount for inspectors to insure that we are not poisoned, killed, maimed and cheated by manufacturers, suppliers, importers, retailers and advertisers. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead due to illness, death, lost productivity and fraud?
We could be providing a sound education of our young and funding basic scientific research. But, apparently why do that when we can lose trillions instead making ourselves uncompetitive at home and abroad.
We could be providing for upkeep on roads, bridges, parks, schools, and other critical infrastructure before the too long deferred maintenance costs us trillions to replace them. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead for more tax cuts primarily for the already unspeakable rich?
We could be providing a small amount for alternative energy sources which will wean us from oil addiction. But, apparently why do that when we can continue instead to pay trillions filling the treasuries of countries that hate our guts?
We could be seeking better ways to prevent or minimize global warming, pandemics, air pollution, water pollution, soil loss, fishery destruction and the like. But, apparently why do that when we can risk instead trillions in property damage and lives lost?
We could be seeking better protection for cargo ports and points of entry to insure fewer terrorism risks. But, apparently why do that when we can risk instead trillions in losses from just a single well placed terrorist bomb?
Taxes are what get things done which only government can do. But, they can't be done when self-styled Conservatives get a chance to spend them instead on foolishness or lining their own pockets.
Why is it that apparently no Conservative politician or pundit has ever heard of the concept of cost/benefit analysis? Did they all flunk math in grade school? Are they just incompetent or deliberate deceivers or both? Least we forget, alleged "Conservatives" have cost us more money in the past few weeks than all the welfare cheats in all of history put together.
So, the next time a Conservative, whether a Republican or for that matter a pandering Democrat, hysterically tries to shout the usual knee jerk mantra of "NO TAXES!" or wants to peddle you hatred of government bureaucrats for trying to do their job, keep in mind the following counter mantra:
If you truly want to be conservative, you need to oppose the Conservatives.
Oh yeah. The eternal drum beat by so-called "Conservatives" of no new taxes makes soooooooo much sense. Especially when they are the ones spending taxes faster than the Treasury can count the revenue. Judging by what Conservatives do as opposed to what they say, they apparently want to try and show government can't possibly work. They're right. . . at least as to a government run by what passes for Conservatives these days.
After all, we could be providing health care for all children like most civilized nations do. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead wasting our troops killing and maiming foreigners so we can occupy their country in a pointless war commenced on admitted false justifications?
And, if we must send our troops to fight in wrongheaded wars, we could provide them with adequate armor, sufficient supplies, enough reinforcements, treatment for wounds, and the post service education they were promised. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead for wasteful, too often unworkable, pork barrel "Star Wars" projects benefitting only the CEOs of the military/industrial complex?
We could be providing for regulators to insure that stupidity, greed and duplicity does not occur in our financial institutions. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead to reimburse wall street bankers and stockbrokers for their stupidity, greed, and duplicity?
We could be providing a small amount for inspectors to insure that we are not poisoned, killed, maimed and cheated by manufacturers, suppliers, importers, retailers and advertisers. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead due to illness, death, lost productivity and fraud?
We could be providing a sound education of our young and funding basic scientific research. But, apparently why do that when we can lose trillions instead making ourselves uncompetitive at home and abroad.
We could be providing for upkeep on roads, bridges, parks, schools, and other critical infrastructure before the too long deferred maintenance costs us trillions to replace them. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead for more tax cuts primarily for the already unspeakable rich?
We could be providing a small amount for alternative energy sources which will wean us from oil addiction. But, apparently why do that when we can continue instead to pay trillions filling the treasuries of countries that hate our guts?
We could be seeking better ways to prevent or minimize global warming, pandemics, air pollution, water pollution, soil loss, fishery destruction and the like. But, apparently why do that when we can risk instead trillions in property damage and lives lost?
We could be seeking better protection for cargo ports and points of entry to insure fewer terrorism risks. But, apparently why do that when we can risk instead trillions in losses from just a single well placed terrorist bomb?
Taxes are what get things done which only government can do. But, they can't be done when self-styled Conservatives get a chance to spend them instead on foolishness or lining their own pockets.
Why is it that apparently no Conservative politician or pundit has ever heard of the concept of cost/benefit analysis? Did they all flunk math in grade school? Are they just incompetent or deliberate deceivers or both? Least we forget, alleged "Conservatives" have cost us more money in the past few weeks than all the welfare cheats in all of history put together.
So, the next time a Conservative, whether a Republican or for that matter a pandering Democrat, hysterically tries to shout the usual knee jerk mantra of "NO TAXES!" or wants to peddle you hatred of government bureaucrats for trying to do their job, keep in mind the following counter mantra:
If you truly want to be conservative, you need to oppose the Conservatives.
2008/10/09
"WHO Really DESTROYED THE ECONOMY?"
Or, It Must Have Been That Evil Clinton Again (Bill, that is)
I have been trying to figure out how the Republicans would finally manage to blame the last thirty years of Republican financial irresponsibility on Bill Clinton. After all, they have blamed everything else on earth on him. At last, the answer.
According to the latest explanations by Republican shills, apparently he “pressured” the poor defenseless Republican CEOs of the Republican owned banks to assist more low income people get into home ownership. Supposedly, they instantly capitulated and made loans to everyone who walked through the door no matter how risky it was in doing so. Yes, they made obscenely huge profits in doing so, but it was practically entrapment. They had no choice except to line their pockets and endanger the nation.
Yes, the Republican dominated stock market seeing the huge profits wanted some of it and made stock and insurance bets disguised by a bunch a phony names, but that only magnifies Clinton’s guilt for putting the idea in their heads. The fact that the Republicans making all the critical decisions were deciding in essence either (a) nothing could ever possibly go wrong or (b) they could stick the Treasury with the bill for the bet. . . . Well, that was irrelevant.
Shame on that nasty old Clinton for tempting them that way. Didn’t he know the Republican CEOs weren’t capable of resisting the greed? Didn’t he know they would over react and take his literally without restriction or restraint? Didn’t he know those heads of the big corps weren’t sufficiently educated or experienced in financial or security matters to see the danger or where it might lead? Didn’t he know they didn’t have the smarts, the tools or the guts to obstruct, let alone effectively resist a man whose guts they so thoroughly hated? Didn’t he know the Republicans had dismantled or controlled any regulatory agencies and laws that might have spotted or prevented the problems? Shame shame shame on Clinton for taking such terrible advantage of the Republicans’ weaknesses and utter ineptitude.
Is it too late to impeach Clinton in absentia for his high crime and misdemeanor of giving those poor innocent Republicans an excuse to rape our economy? If it’s too late, then maybe every Republican CEO, banker, lender, stockbroker, pundit and“regulator” at least ought to start wearing blue dresses to subtlety remind the rest of us how Clinton forced all those thousands of Republicans to their knees in service of his favor for subprime borrowers.
I have been trying to figure out how the Republicans would finally manage to blame the last thirty years of Republican financial irresponsibility on Bill Clinton. After all, they have blamed everything else on earth on him. At last, the answer.
According to the latest explanations by Republican shills, apparently he “pressured” the poor defenseless Republican CEOs of the Republican owned banks to assist more low income people get into home ownership. Supposedly, they instantly capitulated and made loans to everyone who walked through the door no matter how risky it was in doing so. Yes, they made obscenely huge profits in doing so, but it was practically entrapment. They had no choice except to line their pockets and endanger the nation.
Yes, the Republican dominated stock market seeing the huge profits wanted some of it and made stock and insurance bets disguised by a bunch a phony names, but that only magnifies Clinton’s guilt for putting the idea in their heads. The fact that the Republicans making all the critical decisions were deciding in essence either (a) nothing could ever possibly go wrong or (b) they could stick the Treasury with the bill for the bet. . . . Well, that was irrelevant.
Shame on that nasty old Clinton for tempting them that way. Didn’t he know the Republican CEOs weren’t capable of resisting the greed? Didn’t he know they would over react and take his literally without restriction or restraint? Didn’t he know those heads of the big corps weren’t sufficiently educated or experienced in financial or security matters to see the danger or where it might lead? Didn’t he know they didn’t have the smarts, the tools or the guts to obstruct, let alone effectively resist a man whose guts they so thoroughly hated? Didn’t he know the Republicans had dismantled or controlled any regulatory agencies and laws that might have spotted or prevented the problems? Shame shame shame on Clinton for taking such terrible advantage of the Republicans’ weaknesses and utter ineptitude.
Is it too late to impeach Clinton in absentia for his high crime and misdemeanor of giving those poor innocent Republicans an excuse to rape our economy? If it’s too late, then maybe every Republican CEO, banker, lender, stockbroker, pundit and“regulator” at least ought to start wearing blue dresses to subtlety remind the rest of us how Clinton forced all those thousands of Republicans to their knees in service of his favor for subprime borrowers.
2008/10/01
“PHONY FINANCIALS AND OTHER FOLLIES”
Or, Some Questions to Ask About the Bailout
NEWS FLASH: Republican leaders and their PR department announced the sun rose in the West yesterday. The Main Stream Media, in their daily effort to prove they are not now and never were the slightest bit scientific oriented (since that might be construed as liberal or elitist), promptly publicized the announcement about the sudden new direction the sun has supposedly taken. Republican voters and many independents who depend on letting others do their thinking for them immediately looked West waiting for the sunrise. Textbook publishers revise astronomical charts rather than risk loss of sales.
Apparently, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and the Democrats are to blame for the economic meltdown we are facing, at least according to the latest Republican press conferences. Perhaps before accepting that at face value, blaming what will ultimately be a multi-trillion dollar debacle solely on the gullible Democrats in Congress, I would recommend voters review some pretty unquestionable history and ask themselves some simple, relatively common sense questions. That way we can find out who to debit and who to credit, or at least who has less credibility.
Start with asking what party was in control of both the House and the Senate over most of the last 30 or so years? What party had the strongest or actual control over most of the period? For instance, wasn’t the latest switch in supposed “control” of the Senate close to a single vote in favor of the Democrats (i.e. little real “control” at all) and wasn’t one of those supposed votes giving Democrats finally control someone who was also a keynote speaker at the Republican convention? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Opportunity?
Meanwhile, who controlled the White House over most of that same period and not only proposed new laws, but controlled submission of both the budgets of the regulatory agencies and appointment power dictating who is hired and fired at regulatory agencies and what their philosophy of enforcement or non-enforcement will be? Have voters read the report out in the past few days regarding the Justice Department in the Bush Administration and see what such appointment power can do? Those are only the first questions. In a criminal court case, that would be who had Means?
During that same period of the last three decades or so, which party had as its platform the free and unrestricted market place, especially in financial and trade matters? Which party had and still has as its platform a goal of small government and massive deregulation? Which party sought the most deregulation and proudly announced each success in doing so? What party appointed all the current federal regulatory commissions and agencies? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Motive?
How many years have they been on the job? Wasn’t seven years long enough to spot something like that? If the party that did the present regulatory agency appointments and gave directional control to such agencies wins the election, isn’t it likely that will continue for additional years? Who will they likely appoint to the federal regulatory commissions and agencies if they are given the chance? In a criminal court case, that would be who had the Last Clear Chance?
Maybe the question should be, how many such debacles can we afford?
Certainly ask, what party do the CEOs and senior officers and directors of most of the financial institutions, public and private, especially those that have had either bailouts given them or sought bankruptcy law protection, belonged to? What party demanded that lobbying agencies hire Republicans as lobbyists? Who is it contemplated that will receive all or almost all the “bailout” funds? How long have they been in their positions? Were any indicted or jailed for fraud? What party did most of them belong to? Who did they give the most campaign contributions to? Democrats or Republicans?
Were they at least on the job while the supposed chicaneries of the bare majority Democrats was going on? Why didn’t they object over the years if that was true about the bare majority Democrats? Did they not see it (in which case they are effectively incompetent and should be replaced)? Or, were they gleefully in favor (in which case they are essentially co-conspirators and should be replaced)? Who pocketed the most profits that was obtained by the supposed chicaneries? If they were pocketing money knowing what was happening, what happened to the concept of Country First? Has that really been applied over the last several years if greed was an easy alternative? What party do you suppose most of the investors, speculators and shareholders of such companies belonged to when the money was flowing in during the go-go days? In a criminal court case, these would be cross examination Weight of Evidence and Credibility questions.
Didn’t they stop to wonder whether the Adam Smith’s Law of Supply and Demand had actually been magically repealed? Why didn’t they speak out or go to the press if debt was being given to homeowners with little means to repay the amounts? For that matter, why didn’t they notice or report debtor banks taking debt with little or doubtful security? Who devised the complicated financing schemes and the bundling that has lead to much of the unfettered disaster? Who was basing their action on an apparent assumption the bubble could not bust and housing prices would always go up? In a criminal court case, that would be more credibility or Veracity questions.
Yet, what party has always declared for public consumption at least it was the supposedly conservative party while simultaneously insisting it is always a good time to lower taxes, especially for the rich, no matter what the economy happens to be doing? In a criminal court case, that would be Admissions Against Interest.
Weren’t there any signs this could happen as a result of such policies? Were they truly that ignorant? Weren’t there some Democrats arguing for more and closer scrutiny? Who shouted them down as ignorant claiming nothing could go wrong? Where there any Republicans arguing for more and closer scrutiny?
What Administration was in power during the similar, albeit smaller scale, destruction of the Savings and Loan Administration? That only cost billions. Wasn’t the tactics back during that crisis, such as inflated appraisals, poorly secured debt, etc. much the same as has been going on now? Didn’t the bill for that implosion get stuck with the taxpayers too? Does the word “Enron” ring any bells?
Weren’t any lessons learned? Doesn’t anyone remember or at least read history and economic textbooks?
What Administration and party took away the power of the bankruptcy court to adjust mortgages of individuals to real market value and interest, but refused to restrict credit agencies in any way, shape or form? What Administration thought that it was a good idea to send manufacturing and jobs overseas?
What Administration proposed the initial “bailout” plan unveiled a few days ago? How long has that Administration been in office? Why didn’t they see this coming so such a bailout would not be needed? If it was not their job, then who?
Did the bailout first proposed by the Republican Administration have a single restriction on the Treasury Secretary’s powers or even freedom from prosecution? Why not? Did the bare majority Democrats draft that proposal?
What industry did the Treasury Secretary come from? Does he strike you as credible when you listen to him and watch his face? What college degrees does he hold? What degrees does the President hold? MBA and business degrees, right? But, somehow it was the bare majority Democrats cleverly conning them all? Do the bare majority Democrats strike you as genius that way?
Where did the $700,000,000,000.00 bailout figure come from? Wasn’t it admitted that was pulled out of the air? Are anyone convinced more won’t be needed? Do anyone have confidence in those in charge in the Administration who will administer whatever bailout plan is approved? Remember when we were told that the billions on the bailout of AIG and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac probably wouldn’t be needed just days before they were bailed out using all the money set aside? Who told us that? Who is now claiming we must act immediately and without question?
Feel free to question the bare majority Democrats. Use “enhanced interrogation techniques” so favored by the White House. Use them on all residing in Congress if you want so long as the same techniques are used on those in the Administration. But, for the moment voters should ask themselves who is trying to divert attention by claiming even asking any questions about the plan specifics will somehow destroy the nation? Who is trying to say we must not look at blame before acting even though finding out the cause might be important to deciding what to do for a cure? Why would they not want us to know such information? Who would benefit the most if there was no inquiry into blame?
Has this Administration proven itself credible on most other warnings and predictions it has made? Come to think of it, has this Administration proven itself credible on any major warning or prediction it has made on any subject?
Why wasn’t anything other than the “nuclear option” of the huge bailout even seriously discussed by the Administration? Has the Administration been persuasive in their evidence? Is it sufficient for such a price tag? Do you feel there has been adequate debate allowed? Even with the cosmetic changes the Democrats and some Republicans have added to the bailout of the subprime lenders, do you believe it affects any systemic changes so this won’t happen again?
So.......voters should ask themselves those questions. Most of them truly are just common sense, gut credibility, elementary math, and basic history questions. They should be asked no matter what their party affiliation is. Voters should think of themselves as a jury. Was it crimes of passion or just greed? In any event, did those in charge honor their oath of office?
Then, voters should ask themselves if it really was just the bare majority Democrats as alluded to by those who want the Republicans to continue as the sole appointers and suppliers of the regulators. If it was not just the bare majority Democrats as the excusers would like us to believe, then in light of all the circumstances does the Republican Party genuinely deserve a kiss and four more years? Like the captain of a ship, shouldn’t there be some consequence to being in charge when the ship runs aground? Unlike the criminal law system, those questioning do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The test is mere preponderance of the evidence.
Criminently (yeah a silly pun)!
Still no doubts? None at all gnawing?
If not, then I guess I am really lucky on the Oregon shore where I will be able now to watch the sun come up over the Ocean.
NEWS FLASH: Republican leaders and their PR department announced the sun rose in the West yesterday. The Main Stream Media, in their daily effort to prove they are not now and never were the slightest bit scientific oriented (since that might be construed as liberal or elitist), promptly publicized the announcement about the sudden new direction the sun has supposedly taken. Republican voters and many independents who depend on letting others do their thinking for them immediately looked West waiting for the sunrise. Textbook publishers revise astronomical charts rather than risk loss of sales.
Apparently, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and the Democrats are to blame for the economic meltdown we are facing, at least according to the latest Republican press conferences. Perhaps before accepting that at face value, blaming what will ultimately be a multi-trillion dollar debacle solely on the gullible Democrats in Congress, I would recommend voters review some pretty unquestionable history and ask themselves some simple, relatively common sense questions. That way we can find out who to debit and who to credit, or at least who has less credibility.
Start with asking what party was in control of both the House and the Senate over most of the last 30 or so years? What party had the strongest or actual control over most of the period? For instance, wasn’t the latest switch in supposed “control” of the Senate close to a single vote in favor of the Democrats (i.e. little real “control” at all) and wasn’t one of those supposed votes giving Democrats finally control someone who was also a keynote speaker at the Republican convention? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Opportunity?
Meanwhile, who controlled the White House over most of that same period and not only proposed new laws, but controlled submission of both the budgets of the regulatory agencies and appointment power dictating who is hired and fired at regulatory agencies and what their philosophy of enforcement or non-enforcement will be? Have voters read the report out in the past few days regarding the Justice Department in the Bush Administration and see what such appointment power can do? Those are only the first questions. In a criminal court case, that would be who had Means?
During that same period of the last three decades or so, which party had as its platform the free and unrestricted market place, especially in financial and trade matters? Which party had and still has as its platform a goal of small government and massive deregulation? Which party sought the most deregulation and proudly announced each success in doing so? What party appointed all the current federal regulatory commissions and agencies? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Motive?
How many years have they been on the job? Wasn’t seven years long enough to spot something like that? If the party that did the present regulatory agency appointments and gave directional control to such agencies wins the election, isn’t it likely that will continue for additional years? Who will they likely appoint to the federal regulatory commissions and agencies if they are given the chance? In a criminal court case, that would be who had the Last Clear Chance?
Maybe the question should be, how many such debacles can we afford?
Certainly ask, what party do the CEOs and senior officers and directors of most of the financial institutions, public and private, especially those that have had either bailouts given them or sought bankruptcy law protection, belonged to? What party demanded that lobbying agencies hire Republicans as lobbyists? Who is it contemplated that will receive all or almost all the “bailout” funds? How long have they been in their positions? Were any indicted or jailed for fraud? What party did most of them belong to? Who did they give the most campaign contributions to? Democrats or Republicans?
Were they at least on the job while the supposed chicaneries of the bare majority Democrats was going on? Why didn’t they object over the years if that was true about the bare majority Democrats? Did they not see it (in which case they are effectively incompetent and should be replaced)? Or, were they gleefully in favor (in which case they are essentially co-conspirators and should be replaced)? Who pocketed the most profits that was obtained by the supposed chicaneries? If they were pocketing money knowing what was happening, what happened to the concept of Country First? Has that really been applied over the last several years if greed was an easy alternative? What party do you suppose most of the investors, speculators and shareholders of such companies belonged to when the money was flowing in during the go-go days? In a criminal court case, these would be cross examination Weight of Evidence and Credibility questions.
Didn’t they stop to wonder whether the Adam Smith’s Law of Supply and Demand had actually been magically repealed? Why didn’t they speak out or go to the press if debt was being given to homeowners with little means to repay the amounts? For that matter, why didn’t they notice or report debtor banks taking debt with little or doubtful security? Who devised the complicated financing schemes and the bundling that has lead to much of the unfettered disaster? Who was basing their action on an apparent assumption the bubble could not bust and housing prices would always go up? In a criminal court case, that would be more credibility or Veracity questions.
Yet, what party has always declared for public consumption at least it was the supposedly conservative party while simultaneously insisting it is always a good time to lower taxes, especially for the rich, no matter what the economy happens to be doing? In a criminal court case, that would be Admissions Against Interest.
Weren’t there any signs this could happen as a result of such policies? Were they truly that ignorant? Weren’t there some Democrats arguing for more and closer scrutiny? Who shouted them down as ignorant claiming nothing could go wrong? Where there any Republicans arguing for more and closer scrutiny?
What Administration was in power during the similar, albeit smaller scale, destruction of the Savings and Loan Administration? That only cost billions. Wasn’t the tactics back during that crisis, such as inflated appraisals, poorly secured debt, etc. much the same as has been going on now? Didn’t the bill for that implosion get stuck with the taxpayers too? Does the word “Enron” ring any bells?
Weren’t any lessons learned? Doesn’t anyone remember or at least read history and economic textbooks?
What Administration and party took away the power of the bankruptcy court to adjust mortgages of individuals to real market value and interest, but refused to restrict credit agencies in any way, shape or form? What Administration thought that it was a good idea to send manufacturing and jobs overseas?
What Administration proposed the initial “bailout” plan unveiled a few days ago? How long has that Administration been in office? Why didn’t they see this coming so such a bailout would not be needed? If it was not their job, then who?
Did the bailout first proposed by the Republican Administration have a single restriction on the Treasury Secretary’s powers or even freedom from prosecution? Why not? Did the bare majority Democrats draft that proposal?
What industry did the Treasury Secretary come from? Does he strike you as credible when you listen to him and watch his face? What college degrees does he hold? What degrees does the President hold? MBA and business degrees, right? But, somehow it was the bare majority Democrats cleverly conning them all? Do the bare majority Democrats strike you as genius that way?
Where did the $700,000,000,000.00 bailout figure come from? Wasn’t it admitted that was pulled out of the air? Are anyone convinced more won’t be needed? Do anyone have confidence in those in charge in the Administration who will administer whatever bailout plan is approved? Remember when we were told that the billions on the bailout of AIG and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac probably wouldn’t be needed just days before they were bailed out using all the money set aside? Who told us that? Who is now claiming we must act immediately and without question?
Feel free to question the bare majority Democrats. Use “enhanced interrogation techniques” so favored by the White House. Use them on all residing in Congress if you want so long as the same techniques are used on those in the Administration. But, for the moment voters should ask themselves who is trying to divert attention by claiming even asking any questions about the plan specifics will somehow destroy the nation? Who is trying to say we must not look at blame before acting even though finding out the cause might be important to deciding what to do for a cure? Why would they not want us to know such information? Who would benefit the most if there was no inquiry into blame?
Has this Administration proven itself credible on most other warnings and predictions it has made? Come to think of it, has this Administration proven itself credible on any major warning or prediction it has made on any subject?
Why wasn’t anything other than the “nuclear option” of the huge bailout even seriously discussed by the Administration? Has the Administration been persuasive in their evidence? Is it sufficient for such a price tag? Do you feel there has been adequate debate allowed? Even with the cosmetic changes the Democrats and some Republicans have added to the bailout of the subprime lenders, do you believe it affects any systemic changes so this won’t happen again?
So.......voters should ask themselves those questions. Most of them truly are just common sense, gut credibility, elementary math, and basic history questions. They should be asked no matter what their party affiliation is. Voters should think of themselves as a jury. Was it crimes of passion or just greed? In any event, did those in charge honor their oath of office?
Then, voters should ask themselves if it really was just the bare majority Democrats as alluded to by those who want the Republicans to continue as the sole appointers and suppliers of the regulators. If it was not just the bare majority Democrats as the excusers would like us to believe, then in light of all the circumstances does the Republican Party genuinely deserve a kiss and four more years? Like the captain of a ship, shouldn’t there be some consequence to being in charge when the ship runs aground? Unlike the criminal law system, those questioning do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The test is mere preponderance of the evidence.
Criminently (yeah a silly pun)!
Still no doubts? None at all gnawing?
If not, then I guess I am really lucky on the Oregon shore where I will be able now to watch the sun come up over the Ocean.
2008/09/26
BIASES, BINGES, BOONDOGGLES AND BAILOUTS
Or, 13 Reasons for Ruin and ... maybe, a few Routes for Recovery
Dear Senators, Representatives and those who want to be President:
As near as I can figure out, up until the last few days, the Republican policies regarding our nation’s financial institutions and financial security seem to have been to:
(1) eliminate most scrutiny and regulation of financial institutions of any sort by changing or reinterpreting the laws,
(2) cut the staff and funding of the existing regulatory agencies,
(3) put agency heads in power who come from the regulated financial institutions and/or who are openly opposed to scrutiny and regulation on principle,
(4) replace the remaining professional staff doing the day to day regulating with either party zealots or those who will do what they are told,
(5) encourage embarrassingly massive campaign contributions from the institutions that were supposed to be scrutinized and regulated,
(6) conduct most public business in private,
(7) arrogantly and patronizingly insist that the “experts” (i.e. themselves and only themselves) know best no matter how obvious or elementary the proposition,
(8) attempt to impose a particular ideology on the market regardless of present circumstances,
(9) proclaim that the many questionable practices being produced such as loaning large sums to people who could not possibly pay it back secured by overpriced housing were somehow sound investments,
(10) assume sales prices of stocks, bonds and homes would continue to increase forever,
(11) cut taxes whether the economy is going up or down,
(12) discourage savings while simultaneously allowing heavy, heavy borrowing by consumers, businesses and the government itself to accumulate to ridiculously high levels thereby shifting the burden to future generations, and
(13) mortgage that future to largely foreign country creditors.
There seems to be little doubt left that above mentioned “baker’s dozen” of boneheaded decisions, bilious due diligence, bad deals and big debt not only busted our dollar’s standing, but caused a cascading collapse posing a deadly threat to our entire economy. The failure has been spectacular to say the least. It is not as if this was impossible to predict though. Some of the reasons behind the disaster are not too dissimilar from the destruction of the Savings and Loan Industry a few years ago, a debacle by the way in which another Bush, Neil, played a prominent role. In hindsight, if the question had been posed as above, that is reciting simply the 13 financial policies on which the economy was retooled starting with Ronald Regan, how could anyone with even a high school education not concluded those cumulative policies could lead to a new meltdown? It is one thing to gamble, but on this scale?
Has no one in the Republican Party ever heard of the Mini/Max concept in which you try at least to minimize your maximum losses. Has no one with a (Chinese made) American flag pinned on their pin stripe suit read Adam Smith? Did everyone in charge assume the law of supply and demand can be violated with impunity? How did “Conservative” with a large “C” come to mean the opposite of “conservative” with a small “c”? Does an MBA degree stand for Must Blow All?
The harm may have been unintentional, but speaking as a practicing business lawyer, the case law has always been quite clear on such situations. Those whose wilful acts or omissions cause reckless endangerment of others should be held responsible. And, it was dangerous, extremely so given the size and interlocking aspects of the undertakings. Frankly, if the five Republicans on the Supreme Court had put self declared terrorist, Osama bin Laden, in the White House in 2000 instead of the self declared “Business President,” bin Laden probably would not have been able to do as much harm to our nation. At least his policies would have received better scrutiny than the current occupant.
There were some greedy Democrats among the many, many Republicans who were more interested in lining their pockets and protecting privileges than protecting the country. And, other Democrats no doubt deserve a certain portion of the blame for being too weak, too cowardly, or too ineffective to be able to stop the looting that has gone on for the past decade or so when Republicans either controlled Congress or had enough votes to block changes. I am not a Democrat and do not care for the present Democratic Party leadership and almost all need a swift kick in the pants or replacement. But, for the most part, blame for this latest in a series of monumental crippling fiascos must be laid squarely at the feet of the Republican Party as a whole and those the party members gleefully selected to lead them. Democrats may be stupid or naive, but the Republicans are truly scary. Extremely frightening to me, in fact. Worse, they succeeded at all or almost all they sought and the direct result is the potential equivalent of bankruptcy not merely for millions of citizens and companies, but the country itself.
Good grief. The number of zeros in the amount demanded by the White House, $700,000,000,000.00, for its so-called “bailout” plan to hopefully slow down the hemorrhaging is approaching the gargantuan sized pile the Pentagon spends on everything it does including two separate wars and trying to refit a tired and badly used military. Yet, the hundreds of billions in supposedly needed instant “bailout” was not even on the budget. Talk about budget busters, it is the biggest “bailout” of all time and may be greater than all the past ones put together especially when the other buyouts of the past few weeks are counted in dramatically upping the total. It’s staggering in its implications, almost unimaginable in scale. In any event, much of it is likely a net loss, maybe all. And, there is no reliable evidence that the hemorrhaging stops at a mere trillion or so. Shouldn’t there be some nagging doubt or scepticism about the concept as well as the amount since those telling us so are the same ones who told us the Iraq War would “only” cost $20 billion?
So, what to do? Bush’s Treasury Secretary has proposed a “bailout” which will give him an initial three-quarter trillion to play with. That Treasury Secretary and his boss had the nerve to initially demand Congress abdicate its Constitution responsibility to oversee the taxpayer resources being possibly squandered. The Secretary (who came to his position straight out of the same group of preening, cover storied, “geniuses” on Wall Street who made a lot of other promises and representations) asked, no - demanded, that he be given the power to do whatever he jolly well pleases with that huge pile of cash. He insisted that there be no oversight and especially no penalties or future liability for him. As to what he plans to do with it, he has already indicated he intended to simply hand the money over to the malefactors who caused the problem with no strings attached. He apparently planed to buy up his buddies stupidities (or thefts) and happily stick the tab with the taxpayers. If there are any profits later, those would have been kept solely by those who caused the losses. The Treasury Secretary still insists this be done almost immediately with next to no debate or investigation. The unmitigated gall and arrogance of such a proposal is something only the current Administration could have come up with. In light of their track record on this and almost everything else, they could have at least acted humble when they were proposing a pocket picking and power grab of such magnitude.
Since Senator McCain has said only days ago he greatly admires that Treasury Secretary. Of course, the Treasury Secretary McCain likes so much is the same guy who in March of this year was still going on TV to say the economy was great and let’s keep doing what we have been. McCain has voted for almost every financial deregulation plan his party has proposed over the past few decades and is showing us nothing really different even now. So, McCain just lost my vote for sure.
That leaves the rest of you in Congress such as my own Senator Gordon Smith, who wants to be re-elected for another two to six years even though he has supported so many of those Republican policies that lead us to this juncture. Whether I vote for him will depend on what he and the rest of you do about this between now and election.
If you vote in Congress to pass anything like what has been proposed by the Treasury Secretary, you do not deserve mine or anyone else’s vote. What might get my vote for an incumbent?
• For one, there needs to be denunciation of President Bush and the Treasury Secretary for even proposing such a “bailout” as initially proposed. There should be a public admission by Republicans that the Republican platform and policies on the economy over the past decades was a terrible idea. As for the Democrats, no gloating. You spineless wonders caved in on the abandonment of the concept that financial institutions should be fiscally conservative (with a small “c”). You have complicity in the tragedy thanks to your incompetency in stopping the rape of the system by the Republicans.
• Words are not enough though. If there is to be a transfer of taxpayer money from desperately needed other programs such as rebuilding our national security readiness and protecting our health, jobs and infrastructure, then NO CASH FOR TRASH!!!! Either buy the assets at current market value or buy appropriate shares of the company stock so that taxpayers can have at least a chance as owners, albeit a slim one, of protecting their investment. Or, possibly only allow the money to be given out loans secured by all the assets of the businesses obtaining the money.
• Maybe instead of giving the money to the idiots and maybe criminals directly responsible, perhaps use it instead to take over the mortgages of those poor homeowners suckered into the subprime mortgages with the escalating rates. By the way, didn’t anyone in charge begin to have suspicions once they heard about the “miraculous” growth of what turned out to be aptly named “subprime” mortgages? What part of “subprime” did they not understand? Certainly change the bankruptcy laws to once again allow the court to write down interest rates to fair market rates. Why should the banks be given a write down unless the people they duped or mislead get one too?
• There must be far better oversight and it better be both open and nonpartisan. Congress should closely and frequently oversee progress. Moreover, not all the money should be spent instantaneously. In other words, no bailouts without open and public hearings on each including looking at the books of the target institutions.
• There must be investigations to pin point what went wrong. How can we avoid another debacle unless we know what caused it other than voting Republican in the 21st century? Better yet, there must be criminal investigations with subpoena power to ferret out what appears to be some likely fraud and other criminal activity. Some jail time for the worst offenders might prove to have a deterrent effect.
• In that regard, a significant amount of the money allocated to “save” us must go to funding lots more professional non-partisan regulators and sufficient staff for them to do such ferreting. And, let’s roll back the roll back that was done by Republicans when they set out to restrict any serious regulating since the mid-80's.
• Encourage more savings and less spending by consumers. See that interest rates improve for those who want to put money into banks as depositors.
• We definitely need more transparency on accounting, auditors, appraisals and other “due diligence” practices. Ralph Nader had a good idea for reducing conflicts of interest. He suggested taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment. Maybe create stiff penalties for those who refuse or fail. Certainly no bailout funds unless the companies receiving it agree to new practices and accountability. Prudence and conservatism ought to once again become the principles on which financial institutions make decisions. Increase their fiduciary obligations to protect the money of others.
• Perhaps ask Ralph Nader about another of his suggestions, to create a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives, to deter what he accurately styled as “casino-style capitalism.” Also look at his proposal to avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than, say, 15 times the annual fair market rent value of the home. Doesn’t that sound like a prudent conservative thing to do? Why reject a suggestion simply because of who proposes it? Maybe Nader is on to something.
• In contrast, maybe there should be a continuing suspicion hereafter of those opinions coming from the now fully discredited (no pun intended) financial institutions. Maybe we need more consumer advocates or taxpayer advocates on financial company boards and regulating bodies. Certainly any member of the FDIC or Federal Reserve ought to be subject to Congressional approval.
• Maybe there ought to be warning labels placed on bailed out companies and executives of those companies similar to warnings we put on food, so that future customers know who were idiots and who weren’t. It could be a mandatory part of their prospectus, offerings, advertisements and websites. That would be a good idea even for the nincompoop pundits who should have known better and lead us to this juncture. Journalism will never be a genuine “profession” unless its members have a license before holding themselves out as practitioners. To be a true profession, it should be one with enforceable ethics and occasionally some getting fired for getting it so wrong.
• It is time to lower expectations. Wall Street rules lead to the breaking up of profitable newspaper chains because they weren’t making enough profits. Banks for the same reason made really risky investments because the bank owners and managers didn’t feel the rate of return was as high as it should be to be attractive. Expensive company CEOs made similar risky short term decisions primarily because their personal rewards in stock options and bonuses were tied to short term income, not long term safety or viability. Every silver lining has a cloud. Or, the proverbial “perfect storm” as this is turning out to be. Those might not have occurred if expectations were realistic.
• Certainly NO bailout of uber rich CEOs! If a company gets any funds, there must be no golden parachutes and none of the executives should be allowed to earn more than the President.
• And, enough of the tax cuts, especially for the massively rich. That includes reimposing a reasonable tax on estates of a million or more. Estate taxes can’t harm the financial institutions and would provide desperately needed funds for essential programs which will otherwise be crippled by the bailout.
• Maybe there should be a restriction on lobbying by companies being bailed out.
• Maybe there should be renewed questioning of aggregations, especially in the communications industry and control of news outlets by holding companies with potential conflicts of interest. It is hard to expect vigorous investigations of GE or Disney for instance by the networks those two own. The antitrust laws were created for a reason. The age of the Robber Barons of the late 1800s is not too dissimilar from today. Then, as now, that puts too much influence on the economy in the hands of too few.
• Do we really want to bailout foreign countries that own big pieces of some of the distressed companies? How will that enter the consideration?
• Whatever you do, do not act precipitously. How about asking for some corroborative proof to the extravagant claims of the Administration officials and those desiring to fleece what is left of our nation’s treasury?
The bottom line, as they ironically say in the financial world, is if you vote on a “bailout” without genuine study and reflection, then your foolhardiness becomes evident. So, what’s it going to be? Do you want my vote or do you want to continue with the binge that has been recklessly destroying our country? Your choice. Then, I get my choice.
Dear Senators, Representatives and those who want to be President:
As near as I can figure out, up until the last few days, the Republican policies regarding our nation’s financial institutions and financial security seem to have been to:
(1) eliminate most scrutiny and regulation of financial institutions of any sort by changing or reinterpreting the laws,
(2) cut the staff and funding of the existing regulatory agencies,
(3) put agency heads in power who come from the regulated financial institutions and/or who are openly opposed to scrutiny and regulation on principle,
(4) replace the remaining professional staff doing the day to day regulating with either party zealots or those who will do what they are told,
(5) encourage embarrassingly massive campaign contributions from the institutions that were supposed to be scrutinized and regulated,
(6) conduct most public business in private,
(7) arrogantly and patronizingly insist that the “experts” (i.e. themselves and only themselves) know best no matter how obvious or elementary the proposition,
(8) attempt to impose a particular ideology on the market regardless of present circumstances,
(9) proclaim that the many questionable practices being produced such as loaning large sums to people who could not possibly pay it back secured by overpriced housing were somehow sound investments,
(10) assume sales prices of stocks, bonds and homes would continue to increase forever,
(11) cut taxes whether the economy is going up or down,
(12) discourage savings while simultaneously allowing heavy, heavy borrowing by consumers, businesses and the government itself to accumulate to ridiculously high levels thereby shifting the burden to future generations, and
(13) mortgage that future to largely foreign country creditors.
There seems to be little doubt left that above mentioned “baker’s dozen” of boneheaded decisions, bilious due diligence, bad deals and big debt not only busted our dollar’s standing, but caused a cascading collapse posing a deadly threat to our entire economy. The failure has been spectacular to say the least. It is not as if this was impossible to predict though. Some of the reasons behind the disaster are not too dissimilar from the destruction of the Savings and Loan Industry a few years ago, a debacle by the way in which another Bush, Neil, played a prominent role. In hindsight, if the question had been posed as above, that is reciting simply the 13 financial policies on which the economy was retooled starting with Ronald Regan, how could anyone with even a high school education not concluded those cumulative policies could lead to a new meltdown? It is one thing to gamble, but on this scale?
Has no one in the Republican Party ever heard of the Mini/Max concept in which you try at least to minimize your maximum losses. Has no one with a (Chinese made) American flag pinned on their pin stripe suit read Adam Smith? Did everyone in charge assume the law of supply and demand can be violated with impunity? How did “Conservative” with a large “C” come to mean the opposite of “conservative” with a small “c”? Does an MBA degree stand for Must Blow All?
The harm may have been unintentional, but speaking as a practicing business lawyer, the case law has always been quite clear on such situations. Those whose wilful acts or omissions cause reckless endangerment of others should be held responsible. And, it was dangerous, extremely so given the size and interlocking aspects of the undertakings. Frankly, if the five Republicans on the Supreme Court had put self declared terrorist, Osama bin Laden, in the White House in 2000 instead of the self declared “Business President,” bin Laden probably would not have been able to do as much harm to our nation. At least his policies would have received better scrutiny than the current occupant.
There were some greedy Democrats among the many, many Republicans who were more interested in lining their pockets and protecting privileges than protecting the country. And, other Democrats no doubt deserve a certain portion of the blame for being too weak, too cowardly, or too ineffective to be able to stop the looting that has gone on for the past decade or so when Republicans either controlled Congress or had enough votes to block changes. I am not a Democrat and do not care for the present Democratic Party leadership and almost all need a swift kick in the pants or replacement. But, for the most part, blame for this latest in a series of monumental crippling fiascos must be laid squarely at the feet of the Republican Party as a whole and those the party members gleefully selected to lead them. Democrats may be stupid or naive, but the Republicans are truly scary. Extremely frightening to me, in fact. Worse, they succeeded at all or almost all they sought and the direct result is the potential equivalent of bankruptcy not merely for millions of citizens and companies, but the country itself.
Good grief. The number of zeros in the amount demanded by the White House, $700,000,000,000.00, for its so-called “bailout” plan to hopefully slow down the hemorrhaging is approaching the gargantuan sized pile the Pentagon spends on everything it does including two separate wars and trying to refit a tired and badly used military. Yet, the hundreds of billions in supposedly needed instant “bailout” was not even on the budget. Talk about budget busters, it is the biggest “bailout” of all time and may be greater than all the past ones put together especially when the other buyouts of the past few weeks are counted in dramatically upping the total. It’s staggering in its implications, almost unimaginable in scale. In any event, much of it is likely a net loss, maybe all. And, there is no reliable evidence that the hemorrhaging stops at a mere trillion or so. Shouldn’t there be some nagging doubt or scepticism about the concept as well as the amount since those telling us so are the same ones who told us the Iraq War would “only” cost $20 billion?
So, what to do? Bush’s Treasury Secretary has proposed a “bailout” which will give him an initial three-quarter trillion to play with. That Treasury Secretary and his boss had the nerve to initially demand Congress abdicate its Constitution responsibility to oversee the taxpayer resources being possibly squandered. The Secretary (who came to his position straight out of the same group of preening, cover storied, “geniuses” on Wall Street who made a lot of other promises and representations) asked, no - demanded, that he be given the power to do whatever he jolly well pleases with that huge pile of cash. He insisted that there be no oversight and especially no penalties or future liability for him. As to what he plans to do with it, he has already indicated he intended to simply hand the money over to the malefactors who caused the problem with no strings attached. He apparently planed to buy up his buddies stupidities (or thefts) and happily stick the tab with the taxpayers. If there are any profits later, those would have been kept solely by those who caused the losses. The Treasury Secretary still insists this be done almost immediately with next to no debate or investigation. The unmitigated gall and arrogance of such a proposal is something only the current Administration could have come up with. In light of their track record on this and almost everything else, they could have at least acted humble when they were proposing a pocket picking and power grab of such magnitude.
Since Senator McCain has said only days ago he greatly admires that Treasury Secretary. Of course, the Treasury Secretary McCain likes so much is the same guy who in March of this year was still going on TV to say the economy was great and let’s keep doing what we have been. McCain has voted for almost every financial deregulation plan his party has proposed over the past few decades and is showing us nothing really different even now. So, McCain just lost my vote for sure.
That leaves the rest of you in Congress such as my own Senator Gordon Smith, who wants to be re-elected for another two to six years even though he has supported so many of those Republican policies that lead us to this juncture. Whether I vote for him will depend on what he and the rest of you do about this between now and election.
If you vote in Congress to pass anything like what has been proposed by the Treasury Secretary, you do not deserve mine or anyone else’s vote. What might get my vote for an incumbent?
• For one, there needs to be denunciation of President Bush and the Treasury Secretary for even proposing such a “bailout” as initially proposed. There should be a public admission by Republicans that the Republican platform and policies on the economy over the past decades was a terrible idea. As for the Democrats, no gloating. You spineless wonders caved in on the abandonment of the concept that financial institutions should be fiscally conservative (with a small “c”). You have complicity in the tragedy thanks to your incompetency in stopping the rape of the system by the Republicans.
• Words are not enough though. If there is to be a transfer of taxpayer money from desperately needed other programs such as rebuilding our national security readiness and protecting our health, jobs and infrastructure, then NO CASH FOR TRASH!!!! Either buy the assets at current market value or buy appropriate shares of the company stock so that taxpayers can have at least a chance as owners, albeit a slim one, of protecting their investment. Or, possibly only allow the money to be given out loans secured by all the assets of the businesses obtaining the money.
• Maybe instead of giving the money to the idiots and maybe criminals directly responsible, perhaps use it instead to take over the mortgages of those poor homeowners suckered into the subprime mortgages with the escalating rates. By the way, didn’t anyone in charge begin to have suspicions once they heard about the “miraculous” growth of what turned out to be aptly named “subprime” mortgages? What part of “subprime” did they not understand? Certainly change the bankruptcy laws to once again allow the court to write down interest rates to fair market rates. Why should the banks be given a write down unless the people they duped or mislead get one too?
• There must be far better oversight and it better be both open and nonpartisan. Congress should closely and frequently oversee progress. Moreover, not all the money should be spent instantaneously. In other words, no bailouts without open and public hearings on each including looking at the books of the target institutions.
• There must be investigations to pin point what went wrong. How can we avoid another debacle unless we know what caused it other than voting Republican in the 21st century? Better yet, there must be criminal investigations with subpoena power to ferret out what appears to be some likely fraud and other criminal activity. Some jail time for the worst offenders might prove to have a deterrent effect.
• In that regard, a significant amount of the money allocated to “save” us must go to funding lots more professional non-partisan regulators and sufficient staff for them to do such ferreting. And, let’s roll back the roll back that was done by Republicans when they set out to restrict any serious regulating since the mid-80's.
• Encourage more savings and less spending by consumers. See that interest rates improve for those who want to put money into banks as depositors.
• We definitely need more transparency on accounting, auditors, appraisals and other “due diligence” practices. Ralph Nader had a good idea for reducing conflicts of interest. He suggested taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment. Maybe create stiff penalties for those who refuse or fail. Certainly no bailout funds unless the companies receiving it agree to new practices and accountability. Prudence and conservatism ought to once again become the principles on which financial institutions make decisions. Increase their fiduciary obligations to protect the money of others.
• Perhaps ask Ralph Nader about another of his suggestions, to create a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives, to deter what he accurately styled as “casino-style capitalism.” Also look at his proposal to avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than, say, 15 times the annual fair market rent value of the home. Doesn’t that sound like a prudent conservative thing to do? Why reject a suggestion simply because of who proposes it? Maybe Nader is on to something.
• In contrast, maybe there should be a continuing suspicion hereafter of those opinions coming from the now fully discredited (no pun intended) financial institutions. Maybe we need more consumer advocates or taxpayer advocates on financial company boards and regulating bodies. Certainly any member of the FDIC or Federal Reserve ought to be subject to Congressional approval.
• Maybe there ought to be warning labels placed on bailed out companies and executives of those companies similar to warnings we put on food, so that future customers know who were idiots and who weren’t. It could be a mandatory part of their prospectus, offerings, advertisements and websites. That would be a good idea even for the nincompoop pundits who should have known better and lead us to this juncture. Journalism will never be a genuine “profession” unless its members have a license before holding themselves out as practitioners. To be a true profession, it should be one with enforceable ethics and occasionally some getting fired for getting it so wrong.
• It is time to lower expectations. Wall Street rules lead to the breaking up of profitable newspaper chains because they weren’t making enough profits. Banks for the same reason made really risky investments because the bank owners and managers didn’t feel the rate of return was as high as it should be to be attractive. Expensive company CEOs made similar risky short term decisions primarily because their personal rewards in stock options and bonuses were tied to short term income, not long term safety or viability. Every silver lining has a cloud. Or, the proverbial “perfect storm” as this is turning out to be. Those might not have occurred if expectations were realistic.
• Certainly NO bailout of uber rich CEOs! If a company gets any funds, there must be no golden parachutes and none of the executives should be allowed to earn more than the President.
• And, enough of the tax cuts, especially for the massively rich. That includes reimposing a reasonable tax on estates of a million or more. Estate taxes can’t harm the financial institutions and would provide desperately needed funds for essential programs which will otherwise be crippled by the bailout.
• Maybe there should be a restriction on lobbying by companies being bailed out.
• Maybe there should be renewed questioning of aggregations, especially in the communications industry and control of news outlets by holding companies with potential conflicts of interest. It is hard to expect vigorous investigations of GE or Disney for instance by the networks those two own. The antitrust laws were created for a reason. The age of the Robber Barons of the late 1800s is not too dissimilar from today. Then, as now, that puts too much influence on the economy in the hands of too few.
• Do we really want to bailout foreign countries that own big pieces of some of the distressed companies? How will that enter the consideration?
• Whatever you do, do not act precipitously. How about asking for some corroborative proof to the extravagant claims of the Administration officials and those desiring to fleece what is left of our nation’s treasury?
The bottom line, as they ironically say in the financial world, is if you vote on a “bailout” without genuine study and reflection, then your foolhardiness becomes evident. So, what’s it going to be? Do you want my vote or do you want to continue with the binge that has been recklessly destroying our country? Your choice. Then, I get my choice.
2008/07/19
“YOU DID WHAT WITH OUR MONEY?”
Or, a Few Relevant Questions to Ask about Yet Another National Financial Fiasco
Shouldn't some portion of the massive bailout taxpayers are handing the incompetent company officials who recklessly got us in this mortgage mess be used instead to hire more regulators to insure we don't keeping throwing Treasury money away like this every few years? Shouldn't a few of those who cost us maybe trillions be fired or jailed or at least demoted for their incompetency and greed which has jeopardized our entire economy. At what point should greed start amounting to being a traitor or a threat to national security? Why have they allowed our future to be mortgaged to the hilt to foreign countries who wish us ill? Why are we extracting all our scare resources and tapping all our limited capital today just for short term gains without saving anything for the future?
Why is it that none of those in charge can seem to think beyond the next fiscal quarter or the next election cycle? Shouldn't we finally stop listening to some of the mindless Pollyannas in the media who kept saying nothing was wrong, was wrong, was wrong? Why have we forgotten so soon the 1980s disaster these same nincompoops got us into with the now defunct savings and loan industry? Doesn't it strike anyone as interesting how often someone named Bush seems to be playing a prominent role in these debacles? Why did the Republicans when in control dismantle all the useful regulations and inspections of the finance industry? What made any sane person think controls weren't needed or that the ones profiting wouldn't help themselves to extra given the chance? Were did such arrogance and assumption of "entitlement" come from?
The Democratic Party office holders have nothing to be proud of for their rolling over whenever Republicans sneer on the subject, but is there anyone left who still believes that the Republican party deserves a reputation for knowing anything about financial security or conservatism other than how to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else? Surely that myth has been dispelled forever by now. Surely those who voted Republican any time in this century ought to feel embarrassed. Why then doesn't this seem to make a difference to the voters? What is it about our education system that seems to prevent them from analyzing this for themselves?
It would be nice if we got a few trustworthy answers on these questions, although the corporate media we need to look into the questions seems as hell bent as lemmings to follow the corporate financial leaders right off the cliff. What is it about investigative journalists that they can’t seem to the one job we really need them for?
Shouldn't some portion of the massive bailout taxpayers are handing the incompetent company officials who recklessly got us in this mortgage mess be used instead to hire more regulators to insure we don't keeping throwing Treasury money away like this every few years? Shouldn't a few of those who cost us maybe trillions be fired or jailed or at least demoted for their incompetency and greed which has jeopardized our entire economy. At what point should greed start amounting to being a traitor or a threat to national security? Why have they allowed our future to be mortgaged to the hilt to foreign countries who wish us ill? Why are we extracting all our scare resources and tapping all our limited capital today just for short term gains without saving anything for the future?
Why is it that none of those in charge can seem to think beyond the next fiscal quarter or the next election cycle? Shouldn't we finally stop listening to some of the mindless Pollyannas in the media who kept saying nothing was wrong, was wrong, was wrong? Why have we forgotten so soon the 1980s disaster these same nincompoops got us into with the now defunct savings and loan industry? Doesn't it strike anyone as interesting how often someone named Bush seems to be playing a prominent role in these debacles? Why did the Republicans when in control dismantle all the useful regulations and inspections of the finance industry? What made any sane person think controls weren't needed or that the ones profiting wouldn't help themselves to extra given the chance? Were did such arrogance and assumption of "entitlement" come from?
The Democratic Party office holders have nothing to be proud of for their rolling over whenever Republicans sneer on the subject, but is there anyone left who still believes that the Republican party deserves a reputation for knowing anything about financial security or conservatism other than how to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else? Surely that myth has been dispelled forever by now. Surely those who voted Republican any time in this century ought to feel embarrassed. Why then doesn't this seem to make a difference to the voters? What is it about our education system that seems to prevent them from analyzing this for themselves?
It would be nice if we got a few trustworthy answers on these questions, although the corporate media we need to look into the questions seems as hell bent as lemmings to follow the corporate financial leaders right off the cliff. What is it about investigative journalists that they can’t seem to the one job we really need them for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)