I like to listen to the Young Turks. I think they do the best job of political analysis in the media. Admittedly, I don't have the time I'd like to to read more articles, blogs and newspapers, so I don't have the foundation to critique their work at the margins. But the substance is usually spot on.
I heard Cenk mention a week or so ago that the US Government is backing nine out of ten mortgages in the United States. That figure floored me, so I Googled it. What I found was that since Fannie and Freddie crashed, nine of ten are backed by the US. Now, I'm not sure if this means that it is "only" 90% since the crash of 2008, or that we assumed all of F & F's disastrous paper and WE, the taxpayer, now guarantee 90% of the mortgages. And for the point I want to make, I don't care.
This is a socialized mortgage market. Don't be fooled because the mortgages are still going through banks. If we the taxpayer guarantee the loan (meaning WE pay the BANK if the borrower defaults), then this is a government-run home ownership program.
Here's my question: why have the banks in the loop at all?
These fucking banks, these fuck-stained fuck-heads that fucked us all out of billions, and then trillions. Why are they in the loop? Why are we guaranteeing their PROFITS when their incompetence and fraud caused the problem in the first place?
Hey, I'm liberal...you can easily talk me into a dose of government intervention. I'm all for a decent level of socialism, IF it BENEFITS THE AVERAGE WORKING PEOPLE. I would be totally in favor of this level of government intervention in the housing market if the government actually gave the loans. Shit, if we're going to back bad loans and underwater properties anyway, why not just refinance on terms friendly to the treasury, and give Americans a break in the process.
Let underwater and behind-payment Americans refinance directly with the Fed if the bank is not bending over backwards to help them out. Snatch those fucking papers right out of Wall Street's portfolio. If they're bad, we're stuck with them anyway. But if we can reach terms that help Americans stay in their homes, we might save a lot of neighborhoods, maintain some property values and preserve the wealth of the American homeowner.
And, while we're at it, craft some legislation that lets the Treasury take the paper at a discount from the banks, especially if they have been bailed out, or gorging themselves on practically free money from the Fed's window. If the homes have been under water, and the banks haven't negotiated with the owners, take it at real value, and then negotiate at lowered principle. If the banks don't like the Treasury moving in, then give them a chance to do what they should have been doing all along - since their behavior caused this mess in the first place. Regulate on those mother fuckers - they can fix the mess, or We the People can take over and reap the benefits.
Again, I don't know all the details - but I know enough to know we are being screwed, with no vaseline. If we are backing 90% of home mortgages anyway, why not just officially socialize the home loan market and run it strictly for the common good. Why let banks take 100% of the profit if they are only taking 10% of the risk. That makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER! It doesn't make sense economically, morally or politically, if our political system wasn't already sold to the highest bidder.
For that matter, why stop there? There are old usury laws that could be dusted off, and enforced. Since the Fed window has been open to the banks, have they been lending to consumers? NO! They have continued gambling on derivatives. They are currently wagering in a currency derivative market that is valued at over 60 TRILLION DOLLARS! Yeah, like THAT'S not going to blow up! Meanwhile, Americans still lack credit. Slam the window on those banks, and open it to the American consumer.
I want a "FED-IT" card. Let me roll over my usurious 20+ percent VISA or Mastercard to a Fed issued credit card that charges 4% over the current near-zero bank rate. I can chop away at that principle, while we let most of that 4% go towards paying down the national debt. America gets debt reduction, increased consumer spending, increased sales and investment in small, medium and large sized businesses, more hiring and we don't get fucked hard by the Wall Street financial rapists.
I mean, shit...we have bailed them out, back-door bailed them out, given them free money, and guaranteed 90% of their mortgages. I give my kids, who I love dearly, less support. Then, just to rub it in our faces, they paid themselves RECORD BONUSES, because they were so profitable. No shit! If I had the Fed giving me free money, my frozen dog shit shoppe would be among the most profitable businesses too! (By the way, shareholders of bank stocks, are you sharing in those record profits? You know the answer is "hell no!")
The notion of a "free market" in Wall Street finance is long gone, it's out the window. Those banks are basically leeches, sucking the life blood out of the American consumer. Let's go with a financial public option now, and let them fall in line, or fuck off. If they don't like some regulation, let them set up shop in Somalia, and good luck them.
And reader, this is NOT communism. It is the socialization of the supply and distribution of money. Consumers will still be spending this Fedit in a private marketplace. Do you want to argue that it is socialism? Sure, I'd much prefer it to a few elite bankers leveraging our borrowing power to gamble in the international derivatives casino, fucking us all when they crash the system by losing bets. And it is not a question of IF they will lose a bet, but when.
No, sign me up for a Fed-it card. Let the Fed take over my mortgage. Then, appoint regulators that will scrutinize the Fed like a proctologist. And the banks? They used to do just fine making 4, 5 or 6% on mortgages and car loans, and 9.5% on credit cards. If they go back to that, there will be plenty of big salaries to go around, but not as many bonuses. If they don't like it, get a job teaching, fighting fires, changing tires, greeting at Walmart...
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Reality Check and...Praise?
So, Obama made his big 2012 budget speech last Wednesday. I found it interesting that the speech was at 1:30 in the afternoon, as if to say "don't pay too much attention here"...makes me go: hmmm.
Now, I have been a pretty harsh Obama critic. I am not a right wing T-bagger, I criticize from the left. This president has not been on the progressive side of things. So I watched this speech with a hearty amount of skepticism, expecting a validation of multiple Republican talking points.
Imagine my pleasant surprise when President Obama came out breathing fire.
Now keep in mind that Obama is the master of giving a speech that makes people listening think he agrees with them. His White House will then release statements that move policy solidly right of the impression you got from listening to said speech. (Which, by the way, happened this time too!) I have learned give an Obama speech 24 hours to settle, and then you can decipher what was really said.
So, what's my verdict? All in all...an improvement. I still have huge concerns where this president is concerned, but here's what I liked...
First, the politics:
I loved that he waited. To use a poker analogy, this president usually sits at the table, gets his cards, shows them to everybody and then starts moving chip after chip onto the table. This time he sat at the table, held his cards close, anted with a speech while the House Republicans threw Ryan's entire Tea Party wet dream into the pot.
He waited until Senator Ryan put out his Destroy America plan to fix the deficit. That fucking turd of a bill that will destroy Medicare and Medicaid, and impoverish the working people for a generation, while giving many billions more to the top 2%. Now, (to change analogies) this is a giant softball, just floating over the plate, waiting to be crushed. Frankly, the kind this president has just watched float by in the past. But he crushed it instead.
He had heard rumors of the plan, and in the past, he has rushed out with pre-emptive "compromises." This time, he waited, waited...and swung. It was a hit. He was able to attack the plan without having already validated key parts of it (although he will do a little of that throughout the speech). This is what he should have been doing since before the health care debacle.
I also love that he got right down and talked some shit about the Republicans. He said that they were pessimistic, had no faith in America, and hated old people. Sure, I paraphrased, but this is the substance. It's the kind of shit they throw at him all the fucking time. It's about time he gave some back. They cried and whined "the speech was so political..." Yeah, no shit, the President's a politician, and it was high time he had at the opposition.
I also like that he made the case for government. He made it clear that some things, like caring for the elderly and the poor, or building airports and highways, were best done by a well-funded government. He pushed back against the privatization of Medicare that Paul Ryan is planning. (By the way, since the speech, EVERY Democrat voted against the Ryan plan. This is news. Six months ago, shit, six weeks ago at least half a dozen blue dogs would have joined Republicans. I like this too!)
The tone of the speech:
The tone of the speech was strong and progressive. The case that the President made was likewise strong and progressive. It was nice to hear a little of the old 2008 back. The President was definitely combative, but not ham-fisted about it like the Republicans are. He scolded them, sounding wise and reasonable while painting them as selfish children who want, through their greed and ignorance, want to harm their elders. Where has this been for the last two years?
The substance?...this is where I worry.
He said, clearly and unequivocally, that he would veto any privatization of Medicare. Good. He said that there would be no more renewal of the Bush tax cuts. Good. But he did say that Medicare and Medicaid would have to be cut. Oooh...not good. He also said that "nobody gets everything they want." Translation: "I'm open to future caving on these issues." Oooh... He also said that he would follow the recommendation of the Deficit Commission. Ah, fuck!
Obama was quite vague about the details in his speech. He left TONS of room for caving to the right. For instance, will his Medicare "cuts" come in the form of increased efficiency, or will he simply cut not as much as Paul Ryan? And the goddam Deficit Commission, those fuckers are there to steal, on average, $40-60,000 dollars from every working American's future, rather than raise the Social Security cap a little on those earning over $106,000 per year. Hell no!
Yet Obama loves that Deficit Commission, hell, he hand-picked it. That he is triumphing the likes of Alan Simpson, who called ALL of us "tit-suckers" for expecting the Social Security that we FUCKING PAID INTO OUR ENTIRE WORKING LIVES makes me cringe. And, within 24 hours, the White House released a statement saying that they were planning to follow the Deficit Commission. If Obama's great progressive fight is to champion the Deficit commission's plan to fuck the working and middle class of America, then it's over...we don't have a chance at left-of-Reagan governance anytime in our near future.
I'm not the only one worried. The likes of Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes were effervescent after the speech, full of descriptions of the President's brilliance, and full of scorn for anyone who couldn't see it. Yet Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, was on MSNBC expressing a TON of skepticism over the speech. His general message: I'll believe it when I see it. Now, he was a little bitter, probably, because Obama just threw community health centers under the budget bus in his most recent cave-in to Republicans. Those health centers, you may remember, were his payment to Sanders to get his vote on the health care bill. Obama giveth, and Obama taketh away. But bitter or not, Sanders is undoubtedly progressive, and has dealt with the President, and he says the speech was full of pitfalls and possible compromises. And ultimately, on the substance of the speech, I agree with that assessment.
So, where do I stand? Not much farther from where I was. I'd still love to see a strong primary opponent for the President. The reality check for progressives is that although this speech sounded strong, it was Obama beginning campaign mode, which is his strongest suit. A primary challenge would make him lunge left in response, and that would only help with fights over policy in the next eight months or so. I don't doubt that this president has plenty of "cave" left in him.
Yet I have to say that I do like the new Obama tone with the Republicans. I like him standing his ground, and calling them out on policy. I like him saying they have no faith in America, and will harm our seniors. Those are messages that will resonate with huge chunks of the populace, and serve the progressive argument. I hope he keeps it up. I hope he keeps this new willingness to fight for a policy position.
Even if I don't like the reality of the coming policy, I like the new politics. Eh, I'll take it, until the primary.
Now, I have been a pretty harsh Obama critic. I am not a right wing T-bagger, I criticize from the left. This president has not been on the progressive side of things. So I watched this speech with a hearty amount of skepticism, expecting a validation of multiple Republican talking points.
Imagine my pleasant surprise when President Obama came out breathing fire.
Now keep in mind that Obama is the master of giving a speech that makes people listening think he agrees with them. His White House will then release statements that move policy solidly right of the impression you got from listening to said speech. (Which, by the way, happened this time too!) I have learned give an Obama speech 24 hours to settle, and then you can decipher what was really said.
So, what's my verdict? All in all...an improvement. I still have huge concerns where this president is concerned, but here's what I liked...
First, the politics:
I loved that he waited. To use a poker analogy, this president usually sits at the table, gets his cards, shows them to everybody and then starts moving chip after chip onto the table. This time he sat at the table, held his cards close, anted with a speech while the House Republicans threw Ryan's entire Tea Party wet dream into the pot.
He waited until Senator Ryan put out his Destroy America plan to fix the deficit. That fucking turd of a bill that will destroy Medicare and Medicaid, and impoverish the working people for a generation, while giving many billions more to the top 2%. Now, (to change analogies) this is a giant softball, just floating over the plate, waiting to be crushed. Frankly, the kind this president has just watched float by in the past. But he crushed it instead.
He had heard rumors of the plan, and in the past, he has rushed out with pre-emptive "compromises." This time, he waited, waited...and swung. It was a hit. He was able to attack the plan without having already validated key parts of it (although he will do a little of that throughout the speech). This is what he should have been doing since before the health care debacle.
I also love that he got right down and talked some shit about the Republicans. He said that they were pessimistic, had no faith in America, and hated old people. Sure, I paraphrased, but this is the substance. It's the kind of shit they throw at him all the fucking time. It's about time he gave some back. They cried and whined "the speech was so political..." Yeah, no shit, the President's a politician, and it was high time he had at the opposition.
I also like that he made the case for government. He made it clear that some things, like caring for the elderly and the poor, or building airports and highways, were best done by a well-funded government. He pushed back against the privatization of Medicare that Paul Ryan is planning. (By the way, since the speech, EVERY Democrat voted against the Ryan plan. This is news. Six months ago, shit, six weeks ago at least half a dozen blue dogs would have joined Republicans. I like this too!)
The tone of the speech:
The tone of the speech was strong and progressive. The case that the President made was likewise strong and progressive. It was nice to hear a little of the old 2008 back. The President was definitely combative, but not ham-fisted about it like the Republicans are. He scolded them, sounding wise and reasonable while painting them as selfish children who want, through their greed and ignorance, want to harm their elders. Where has this been for the last two years?
The substance?...this is where I worry.
He said, clearly and unequivocally, that he would veto any privatization of Medicare. Good. He said that there would be no more renewal of the Bush tax cuts. Good. But he did say that Medicare and Medicaid would have to be cut. Oooh...not good. He also said that "nobody gets everything they want." Translation: "I'm open to future caving on these issues." Oooh... He also said that he would follow the recommendation of the Deficit Commission. Ah, fuck!
Obama was quite vague about the details in his speech. He left TONS of room for caving to the right. For instance, will his Medicare "cuts" come in the form of increased efficiency, or will he simply cut not as much as Paul Ryan? And the goddam Deficit Commission, those fuckers are there to steal, on average, $40-60,000 dollars from every working American's future, rather than raise the Social Security cap a little on those earning over $106,000 per year. Hell no!
Yet Obama loves that Deficit Commission, hell, he hand-picked it. That he is triumphing the likes of Alan Simpson, who called ALL of us "tit-suckers" for expecting the Social Security that we FUCKING PAID INTO OUR ENTIRE WORKING LIVES makes me cringe. And, within 24 hours, the White House released a statement saying that they were planning to follow the Deficit Commission. If Obama's great progressive fight is to champion the Deficit commission's plan to fuck the working and middle class of America, then it's over...we don't have a chance at left-of-Reagan governance anytime in our near future.
I'm not the only one worried. The likes of Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes were effervescent after the speech, full of descriptions of the President's brilliance, and full of scorn for anyone who couldn't see it. Yet Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, was on MSNBC expressing a TON of skepticism over the speech. His general message: I'll believe it when I see it. Now, he was a little bitter, probably, because Obama just threw community health centers under the budget bus in his most recent cave-in to Republicans. Those health centers, you may remember, were his payment to Sanders to get his vote on the health care bill. Obama giveth, and Obama taketh away. But bitter or not, Sanders is undoubtedly progressive, and has dealt with the President, and he says the speech was full of pitfalls and possible compromises. And ultimately, on the substance of the speech, I agree with that assessment.
So, where do I stand? Not much farther from where I was. I'd still love to see a strong primary opponent for the President. The reality check for progressives is that although this speech sounded strong, it was Obama beginning campaign mode, which is his strongest suit. A primary challenge would make him lunge left in response, and that would only help with fights over policy in the next eight months or so. I don't doubt that this president has plenty of "cave" left in him.
Yet I have to say that I do like the new Obama tone with the Republicans. I like him standing his ground, and calling them out on policy. I like him saying they have no faith in America, and will harm our seniors. Those are messages that will resonate with huge chunks of the populace, and serve the progressive argument. I hope he keeps it up. I hope he keeps this new willingness to fight for a policy position.
Even if I don't like the reality of the coming policy, I like the new politics. Eh, I'll take it, until the primary.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
The Budget Debate = Public Financing
Without the influence of big business, would the budget debate have been anything near as disastrous as it was? Of course not.
First, my usual rant about what a weak and terrible negotiator President Obama is. He starts negotiations by preemptively giving away over 30 billion in cuts to social programs, including heating assistance to the poor, and Pell Grants to university students. Then a few more billion here, and a few more billion there, and the Democratic leadership put about 40 billion in cuts on the table.
Republicans scooped that 40 billion off the table, and said "let's negotiate." They demanded another 32 billion, and Obama and Reid, with their masterful negotiating skills, gave them 33. They have hemmed and hawed, and chiseled a few more billion out of the pathetic Democratic leadership. Total cuts from social programs, that create pain for for middle and working class Americans (let alone the poor and elderly), almost 80 billion. Health and human services, more education, some health care, and across the board cuts for many federal agencies. Pain for most Americans.
And it's all bullshit. All a Vaudeville theatre act crossed with reality TV - a fake drama with lots of chest pounding and poop throwing. A real debate about spending would have included Wall Street, Wars, big oil subsidies and the recent tax cut for the top 2%. We, the average folks, get pounded economically, and have our civil liberties eroded. The corporate elite are making out like bandits - because they are robbing us.
We're fucked, they are swimming in gravy. A real debate about deficits would have included that gravy, but it didn't.
Take the subsidies for big oil. Four BILLION dollars per year for American oil companies. Now, the top five American oil companies made 79 BILLION dollars in PROFIT for 2010. The largest, Exxon Mobile, paid NO TAXES in 2009. Now, put that 4 billion back in the government coffers and they still made 74 BILLION! And, we could heat the homes of poor folks, and send some of their kids to college. Cancel that tax credit for a decade, and you find 40 billion in the couch cushions - half of the painful cuts that will effect most Americans.
Oil subsidies were hardly mentioned. Congress is perfectly willing to let poor people freeze, starve (400+ million was proposedly cut from WIC) and go uneducated; but will not entertain a few percent less profit for big oil. Give a little credit to the President here, he at least brought it up. But there was NO FIGHT on this issue from Democrats.
Defense? The Pentagon's annual budget is 1.5 TRILLION dollars. Fuck! That is a load of money. Any big cuts there in this debate? Nope. Gates and Mullen have recommended some trimming, but I have not heard that any of it has come through in negotiations.
We have military bases in over 100 countries around the world. We are currently involved in three wars (counting Libya), all unpopular with the American people. We spend more on our military than the next 10 largest industrialized military powers COMBINED - and this includes China, Russia and anyone in Europe. Not part of the discussion.
Take food out of the mouths of poor families...from infants and kids - but not from oil companies or military contractors. Or bankers.
We have opened the loading dock doors of the Treasury to the nation's large banks. They get to (figuratively) back trucks up to the doors and load money in at near 0%, over a TRILLION dollars so far. It is free money to use. We also bailed them out to the tune of billions, and then they paid us back with our own money - the small business fund. We could sure use those billions now - why not go and get it from them. And, how about spreading a "free" trillion dollars around the regular economy? A lot more people would be hired, and a lot more revenue would come in.
Oh...but that would not result in a massive bonus for a CEO.
And therein lies the problem. Our leaders are bought, totally and completely.
This budget battle shows all too starkly how our political leaders are not the least bit serious about governing a country. They are borrowing 40% of the money they spend, and the spending is massive. The only reason that any other nation keeps lending to us is that they see how low our tax rates are, and figure that we will soon raise taxes and pay them back. Woe be us when they catch on to how fucked up our politics really are.
This 80 billion in cuts that hurt working families balances the budget for less than 20 days. They could raise revenue, but they are instead planning to rob us blind by taking that money from Social Security and Medicare. They are doing it now. And in the states, they are taking our pensions and our public school budgets while the top 2% get more tax cuts.
They, the Republicans and the Democrats, are cogs in a money laundering machine - our money. Corporations have squeezed the productivity out of the American people to the point of pain, and now they are telling their paid servants, our elected officials, to clean out all the shelves of the vault before they move on like locusts to the next nation (watch out, China).
Obama will not help us, nor will Democratic leaders, nor the Democratic party because they are helping the Republicans hold the robber's sack. Yes, they are better than Republicans, but that will not help us when we are tied to chairs with gags in our mouths as the robber barons take the last pennies, and set the house on fire as they leave. I now believe that it is time for a constitutional amendment - an amendment that takes the private money out of politics.
Without an amendment to the Constitution, the five right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court would strike down a campaign finance reform law. And this sucks, because a constitutional amendment is a long, tough fight. But it is THE issue on which all others hinge, especially in the wake of the Citizens United ruling.
I mean, c'mon...we are literally taking food out of the mouths of poor children to give big oil companies four billion dollars per year - ten times the cuts to the WIC program. That adult Americans in Congress stand by and let that happen shows just HOW CORRUPT our political system is.
C'mon, c'mon...we need 2/3 of the states to pass this amendment. The hard part will be Republican governors who won't get funding without corporate donations - they will veto this. But that will make them hard to reelect - it is a long fight, but we have to do it.
This is the "change" we can believe in. It will free representatives to stand on principle, and on the interests of their constituents - which in some cases will include these large corporations as important employers. I will still get pissed, and bitch and moan, because I am to the left of most folks where I live, and reps will actually compromise in the interest of the communities they represent, which will include my more conservative neighbors.
But we won't get robbed, and we won't give huge chunks of our decades-earned wealth to the top 2%. Amend now...change 2.1.0?
First, my usual rant about what a weak and terrible negotiator President Obama is. He starts negotiations by preemptively giving away over 30 billion in cuts to social programs, including heating assistance to the poor, and Pell Grants to university students. Then a few more billion here, and a few more billion there, and the Democratic leadership put about 40 billion in cuts on the table.
Republicans scooped that 40 billion off the table, and said "let's negotiate." They demanded another 32 billion, and Obama and Reid, with their masterful negotiating skills, gave them 33. They have hemmed and hawed, and chiseled a few more billion out of the pathetic Democratic leadership. Total cuts from social programs, that create pain for for middle and working class Americans (let alone the poor and elderly), almost 80 billion. Health and human services, more education, some health care, and across the board cuts for many federal agencies. Pain for most Americans.
And it's all bullshit. All a Vaudeville theatre act crossed with reality TV - a fake drama with lots of chest pounding and poop throwing. A real debate about spending would have included Wall Street, Wars, big oil subsidies and the recent tax cut for the top 2%. We, the average folks, get pounded economically, and have our civil liberties eroded. The corporate elite are making out like bandits - because they are robbing us.
We're fucked, they are swimming in gravy. A real debate about deficits would have included that gravy, but it didn't.
Take the subsidies for big oil. Four BILLION dollars per year for American oil companies. Now, the top five American oil companies made 79 BILLION dollars in PROFIT for 2010. The largest, Exxon Mobile, paid NO TAXES in 2009. Now, put that 4 billion back in the government coffers and they still made 74 BILLION! And, we could heat the homes of poor folks, and send some of their kids to college. Cancel that tax credit for a decade, and you find 40 billion in the couch cushions - half of the painful cuts that will effect most Americans.
Oil subsidies were hardly mentioned. Congress is perfectly willing to let poor people freeze, starve (400+ million was proposedly cut from WIC) and go uneducated; but will not entertain a few percent less profit for big oil. Give a little credit to the President here, he at least brought it up. But there was NO FIGHT on this issue from Democrats.
Defense? The Pentagon's annual budget is 1.5 TRILLION dollars. Fuck! That is a load of money. Any big cuts there in this debate? Nope. Gates and Mullen have recommended some trimming, but I have not heard that any of it has come through in negotiations.
We have military bases in over 100 countries around the world. We are currently involved in three wars (counting Libya), all unpopular with the American people. We spend more on our military than the next 10 largest industrialized military powers COMBINED - and this includes China, Russia and anyone in Europe. Not part of the discussion.
Take food out of the mouths of poor families...from infants and kids - but not from oil companies or military contractors. Or bankers.
We have opened the loading dock doors of the Treasury to the nation's large banks. They get to (figuratively) back trucks up to the doors and load money in at near 0%, over a TRILLION dollars so far. It is free money to use. We also bailed them out to the tune of billions, and then they paid us back with our own money - the small business fund. We could sure use those billions now - why not go and get it from them. And, how about spreading a "free" trillion dollars around the regular economy? A lot more people would be hired, and a lot more revenue would come in.
Oh...but that would not result in a massive bonus for a CEO.
And therein lies the problem. Our leaders are bought, totally and completely.
This budget battle shows all too starkly how our political leaders are not the least bit serious about governing a country. They are borrowing 40% of the money they spend, and the spending is massive. The only reason that any other nation keeps lending to us is that they see how low our tax rates are, and figure that we will soon raise taxes and pay them back. Woe be us when they catch on to how fucked up our politics really are.
This 80 billion in cuts that hurt working families balances the budget for less than 20 days. They could raise revenue, but they are instead planning to rob us blind by taking that money from Social Security and Medicare. They are doing it now. And in the states, they are taking our pensions and our public school budgets while the top 2% get more tax cuts.
They, the Republicans and the Democrats, are cogs in a money laundering machine - our money. Corporations have squeezed the productivity out of the American people to the point of pain, and now they are telling their paid servants, our elected officials, to clean out all the shelves of the vault before they move on like locusts to the next nation (watch out, China).
Obama will not help us, nor will Democratic leaders, nor the Democratic party because they are helping the Republicans hold the robber's sack. Yes, they are better than Republicans, but that will not help us when we are tied to chairs with gags in our mouths as the robber barons take the last pennies, and set the house on fire as they leave. I now believe that it is time for a constitutional amendment - an amendment that takes the private money out of politics.
Without an amendment to the Constitution, the five right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court would strike down a campaign finance reform law. And this sucks, because a constitutional amendment is a long, tough fight. But it is THE issue on which all others hinge, especially in the wake of the Citizens United ruling.
I mean, c'mon...we are literally taking food out of the mouths of poor children to give big oil companies four billion dollars per year - ten times the cuts to the WIC program. That adult Americans in Congress stand by and let that happen shows just HOW CORRUPT our political system is.
C'mon, c'mon...we need 2/3 of the states to pass this amendment. The hard part will be Republican governors who won't get funding without corporate donations - they will veto this. But that will make them hard to reelect - it is a long fight, but we have to do it.
This is the "change" we can believe in. It will free representatives to stand on principle, and on the interests of their constituents - which in some cases will include these large corporations as important employers. I will still get pissed, and bitch and moan, because I am to the left of most folks where I live, and reps will actually compromise in the interest of the communities they represent, which will include my more conservative neighbors.
But we won't get robbed, and we won't give huge chunks of our decades-earned wealth to the top 2%. Amend now...change 2.1.0?
Monday, April 04, 2011
Man, They Are Robbing Us Blind!
So, you've heard recently, from the Obama Administration, that TARP is being paid back. Yeah, and I've got a bridge in New York that I'd like to sell you.
Senator Chuck Grassley recently requested clarification on the TARP payback from Tim Geithner, because he's heard, as have others, that many of the bailed out banks are paying back their TARP debts with the Small Business Loan fund. Really...who'd a thunk it?
So get this: the rapacious, fuck-stained banks who fucked you on your mortgage, bugger you with 20-30% credit card fees, committed fraud, and crippled the WORLD's economy...got bailed out by you, the taxpayer. Since they were too big to fail, we propped them up with our tax dollars. Oh, and then sat back and watched them use our money to buy each other up - getting even too BIGGER to fail.
Then, they pay themselves more money through the "back door bailouts," like when AIG paid Goldman millions of our dollars, on a bet that Goldman knew would go bad. We paid 100 cents on the dollar for a bad bet. Goldman, Countrywide, pretty much all the major banks had what they knew were toxic assets, mainly mortgage-based derivatives, yet they misled (defrauded) investors up to the moment that the house of cards came crashing down. They crashed the American real estate market, which was the source of most of the average American's wealth and credit. And we bailed them out. Are you pissed yet?
But wait! Then, the CEOs and executives paid themselves RECORD BONUSES last year, because their fraud was so successful. In this same time period, they have been caught foreclosing on homes they have no right to. But they don't care, and they don't stop, because they are not held accountable. Meanwhile, they are allowed to back trucks up right to the treasury. They are being given money, trillions of dollars, at next to 0% from the Fed. It is essentially free money. The banks are making out phenomenally well on this financial disaster.
And now, when we expect them to at least pay back the TARP part of the bailout they recieved (which pales in comparison to the free Fed money they are getting) they fuck us yet again. They are using the Small Business Fund to pay us back.
The Small Business Fund was put in place so that banks could, without risking their own executive bonuses (because, god forbid we should do banking in a capitalist economy), loan money to businesses for equipment and hiring. The intent was to spur hiring and lower the unemployment rate, which is still at near 9%. But instead, these douche-nozzles that run the banks are taking that money and paying back their TARP "loans." Watch an informative video by The Young Turks here.
They are paying back the American tax payer with the American tax payer's money. We have put two pools of money at the banks' disposal, and they are raiding one to repay the other. Man, fuck these guys. We have been so wronged by their criminal conduct that they should be perp-walked by the hundreds. Instead, they tell the President, who has facilitated their egregious thefts, that he is too hard on business.
Here is what should happen:
Senator Chuck Grassley recently requested clarification on the TARP payback from Tim Geithner, because he's heard, as have others, that many of the bailed out banks are paying back their TARP debts with the Small Business Loan fund. Really...who'd a thunk it?
So get this: the rapacious, fuck-stained banks who fucked you on your mortgage, bugger you with 20-30% credit card fees, committed fraud, and crippled the WORLD's economy...got bailed out by you, the taxpayer. Since they were too big to fail, we propped them up with our tax dollars. Oh, and then sat back and watched them use our money to buy each other up - getting even too BIGGER to fail.
Then, they pay themselves more money through the "back door bailouts," like when AIG paid Goldman millions of our dollars, on a bet that Goldman knew would go bad. We paid 100 cents on the dollar for a bad bet. Goldman, Countrywide, pretty much all the major banks had what they knew were toxic assets, mainly mortgage-based derivatives, yet they misled (defrauded) investors up to the moment that the house of cards came crashing down. They crashed the American real estate market, which was the source of most of the average American's wealth and credit. And we bailed them out. Are you pissed yet?
But wait! Then, the CEOs and executives paid themselves RECORD BONUSES last year, because their fraud was so successful. In this same time period, they have been caught foreclosing on homes they have no right to. But they don't care, and they don't stop, because they are not held accountable. Meanwhile, they are allowed to back trucks up right to the treasury. They are being given money, trillions of dollars, at next to 0% from the Fed. It is essentially free money. The banks are making out phenomenally well on this financial disaster.
And now, when we expect them to at least pay back the TARP part of the bailout they recieved (which pales in comparison to the free Fed money they are getting) they fuck us yet again. They are using the Small Business Fund to pay us back.
The Small Business Fund was put in place so that banks could, without risking their own executive bonuses (because, god forbid we should do banking in a capitalist economy), loan money to businesses for equipment and hiring. The intent was to spur hiring and lower the unemployment rate, which is still at near 9%. But instead, these douche-nozzles that run the banks are taking that money and paying back their TARP "loans." Watch an informative video by The Young Turks here.
They are paying back the American tax payer with the American tax payer's money. We have put two pools of money at the banks' disposal, and they are raiding one to repay the other. Man, fuck these guys. We have been so wronged by their criminal conduct that they should be perp-walked by the hundreds. Instead, they tell the President, who has facilitated their egregious thefts, that he is too hard on business.
Here is what should happen:
- Full and complete audit, by the Fed, of any bank who has taken TARP funds. Arrests to follow when the fraud is uncovered.
- Full and complete audit of the Fed, with arrests to follow.
- Immediate cap on bonuses of any executives working for bailed out banks. These bitches work for us now, let's treat them like it.
- Close the Fed open-door for banks, and open it for American consumers. Create a "fed-it" card for any American who is having trouble paying a double-digit interest rate on a credit card. Let Americans pay 3% above the next-to-nothing that the banks were getting, with the interest payments slated for paying down the national debt. C'mon, this is genius.
- Bail out home owners. Since the Federal Government is basically stuck with backing 9 out of 10 mortgages, we have already socialized home ownership. Since the banks have no risk here, fuck 'em. The Fed should offer to refinance tipsy mortgages, including the readjusting of principal payments. Let Americans keep their homes instead of walking away. This preserves property values in those neighborhoods that would otherwise have vacant homes.
- Fire the fuck out of Timothy Geithner. Then send his ass to Gitmo.
But all of these sensible steps would take an executive that cares more about the American people than what Wall Street and Faux News think of him. And we don't have that President right now. Obama is missing in action, and frankly culpable in this fraud and financial skull-buggery that is happening right now.
We are being robbed, and our President is not the cop who will stop this. We have let criminals game the system, and they are now looting the shelves of the vault. They will leave us with nothing, and then leave us for their Hong Kong, Dubai or Bombay offices. Without strong, Democratic push-back...we're fucked.
We're fucked.
Friday, April 01, 2011
I'm Not On Board with Libya
Sorry, Mr. President...I am not on board with your Libya adventure.
I have not posted for over a month, and I am weary of criticizing this president. He is what he is, and I don't think he is on our side. Or my side, anyway. He is Joe Lieberman - liberal on one or two social issues, and pretty (even massively) conservative on most of domestic and foreign policy.
And give him credit. His handling of Libya is vastly superior to what we could have expected of George W. Bush. He managed a real coalition, for largely humanitarian reasons (and CREDIBLE humanitarian reasons), with a clear plan of action, and explained his policy eloquently to the American People just a few nights ago. He is taking a risk - because by limiting America's involvement, success (from an American viewpoint) is questionable and criticism almost guaranteed. We saw bold leadership, and decisive action to avert a humanitarian disaster, and nuanced policy. It is times like this that I am glad we elected the smart guy.
But I am still NOT on board with Obama's Libya policy. I know...when will leftist whiners EVER be satisfied with the President? How about when he fights as hard for the average American as he is for the Libyan opposition!
I am not on board because this is a military adventure that extends, not retracts, America's imperial adventurism in the Middle East. I am not on board because this president, like his predecessors, has flouted the role of Congress as the funders and approvers of US military action. I am not on board because this military adventure is expensive, and we keep hearing from politicians and media that we are "broke!" And, I am not on board because this is one more example of President Obama acting more like a Republican that the Democrat I helped elect.
Dropping bombs on a Muslim nation in North Africa is not, no matter how you frame our humanitarian intentions, an act of peace. It is war. W - A - R, no matter how many times Obama refuses to say it. We are killing Muslims in a THIRD country in that part of the world. We are not, currently, sending our army to kill any other people, not since Bosnia. There was no threat to America, or its interests in Libya. If you want to count Beirut, or Locharbie, well...we've had decades to settle those scores. You say that innocent people are being killed by a tyrant? Welcome to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Ivory Coast...the list goes on. No, no...I fear that our President is doing this because he feels it is politically expedient and advantageous. And, in the Islamic world, we will continue to be seen as imperialist and anti-Muslim.
Dennis Kucinich was the most vocal Democrat in opposition to the President. He claimed that the President had so grossly exceeded his war-powers authority that it invited impeachment. Kucinich was derided for that comment in the liberal blogosphere and talk radio media. "Can you imagine, after all the war crimes of Bush, a Democratic president being impeached by his own party?!?" The derision and mocking were fierce. Here's what I have a hard time imagining:
That there weren't at least 100 other Democratic members of Congress (and all the Republicans) with him.
Dennis Kucinich is a pain in the ass, and way more talk than action. But he's right. The President most likely did exceed his authority. Shit, Bush strong-armed Congress into giving him authorization (even though it was based on lies, and treason)...Obama just ignored it. Jesus Christ you guys, you spineless Congress Critters...YOU have the ultimate responsibility for the nation being at war, AND you have to find a way to pay for it. This is Kucinich's point. Presidents are not supposed to be able to go off on random military adventures without getting congressional approval and paying for them. So much for checks and balances.
This President has capitulated on heating assistance for the poor, because spending must be cut. He is going to cave in on WIC, and cut food stamps to women and children by 400 million dollars. In fact, if the 20 billion in spending concessions go through, Dems will have cut over 70 billion from the budget - all effecting middle income families and the poor. Yet he seems to have no qualms at all about launching cruise missiles on Libya at the cost of 1.5 million dollars each? Over 200 of them by the time of this writing.
C'mon man...Obama appointed a deficit commission, headed by Alan Simpson, who called us all "tit-suckers" for expecting the Social Security we all paid into for decades. He calls on us for "shared sacrifice" while giving tax cuts to the rich. We are going to lose pensions, pay and benefits, yet military contractors who sell cruise missiles will send massive bills to the US taxpayer and pay themselves huge bonuses - 40% of this borrowed from the Chinese, which my kids will work all their lives to pay the interest.
Our president is not fighting to stop this robbery of our, and our kids' futures. If he would send a few figurative cruise missiles to the big banks, to the Republicans, and to the blue dog Dems who sell us out I might get on board for the total fighting package. But as it is, I'm off the bus. This president is fighting harder for the Libyan working class, than for the average American. I mean, I wish the best for our troops, and for the Libyan people. But I do not support the bypassing of Congress for military adventures in the Middle East at great cost to the treasury while my benefits and services are being slashed by those who pillage with impunity while this President fiddles.
I have not posted for over a month, and I am weary of criticizing this president. He is what he is, and I don't think he is on our side. Or my side, anyway. He is Joe Lieberman - liberal on one or two social issues, and pretty (even massively) conservative on most of domestic and foreign policy.
And give him credit. His handling of Libya is vastly superior to what we could have expected of George W. Bush. He managed a real coalition, for largely humanitarian reasons (and CREDIBLE humanitarian reasons), with a clear plan of action, and explained his policy eloquently to the American People just a few nights ago. He is taking a risk - because by limiting America's involvement, success (from an American viewpoint) is questionable and criticism almost guaranteed. We saw bold leadership, and decisive action to avert a humanitarian disaster, and nuanced policy. It is times like this that I am glad we elected the smart guy.
But I am still NOT on board with Obama's Libya policy. I know...when will leftist whiners EVER be satisfied with the President? How about when he fights as hard for the average American as he is for the Libyan opposition!
I am not on board because this is a military adventure that extends, not retracts, America's imperial adventurism in the Middle East. I am not on board because this president, like his predecessors, has flouted the role of Congress as the funders and approvers of US military action. I am not on board because this military adventure is expensive, and we keep hearing from politicians and media that we are "broke!" And, I am not on board because this is one more example of President Obama acting more like a Republican that the Democrat I helped elect.
Dropping bombs on a Muslim nation in North Africa is not, no matter how you frame our humanitarian intentions, an act of peace. It is war. W - A - R, no matter how many times Obama refuses to say it. We are killing Muslims in a THIRD country in that part of the world. We are not, currently, sending our army to kill any other people, not since Bosnia. There was no threat to America, or its interests in Libya. If you want to count Beirut, or Locharbie, well...we've had decades to settle those scores. You say that innocent people are being killed by a tyrant? Welcome to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Ivory Coast...the list goes on. No, no...I fear that our President is doing this because he feels it is politically expedient and advantageous. And, in the Islamic world, we will continue to be seen as imperialist and anti-Muslim.
Dennis Kucinich was the most vocal Democrat in opposition to the President. He claimed that the President had so grossly exceeded his war-powers authority that it invited impeachment. Kucinich was derided for that comment in the liberal blogosphere and talk radio media. "Can you imagine, after all the war crimes of Bush, a Democratic president being impeached by his own party?!?" The derision and mocking were fierce. Here's what I have a hard time imagining:
That there weren't at least 100 other Democratic members of Congress (and all the Republicans) with him.
Dennis Kucinich is a pain in the ass, and way more talk than action. But he's right. The President most likely did exceed his authority. Shit, Bush strong-armed Congress into giving him authorization (even though it was based on lies, and treason)...Obama just ignored it. Jesus Christ you guys, you spineless Congress Critters...YOU have the ultimate responsibility for the nation being at war, AND you have to find a way to pay for it. This is Kucinich's point. Presidents are not supposed to be able to go off on random military adventures without getting congressional approval and paying for them. So much for checks and balances.
This President has capitulated on heating assistance for the poor, because spending must be cut. He is going to cave in on WIC, and cut food stamps to women and children by 400 million dollars. In fact, if the 20 billion in spending concessions go through, Dems will have cut over 70 billion from the budget - all effecting middle income families and the poor. Yet he seems to have no qualms at all about launching cruise missiles on Libya at the cost of 1.5 million dollars each? Over 200 of them by the time of this writing.
C'mon man...Obama appointed a deficit commission, headed by Alan Simpson, who called us all "tit-suckers" for expecting the Social Security we all paid into for decades. He calls on us for "shared sacrifice" while giving tax cuts to the rich. We are going to lose pensions, pay and benefits, yet military contractors who sell cruise missiles will send massive bills to the US taxpayer and pay themselves huge bonuses - 40% of this borrowed from the Chinese, which my kids will work all their lives to pay the interest.
Our president is not fighting to stop this robbery of our, and our kids' futures. If he would send a few figurative cruise missiles to the big banks, to the Republicans, and to the blue dog Dems who sell us out I might get on board for the total fighting package. But as it is, I'm off the bus. This president is fighting harder for the Libyan working class, than for the average American. I mean, I wish the best for our troops, and for the Libyan people. But I do not support the bypassing of Congress for military adventures in the Middle East at great cost to the treasury while my benefits and services are being slashed by those who pillage with impunity while this President fiddles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)