And so what if Barney, pushing the fraud that executive compensation is anything more than a trivial matter, says it's a done deal. Stirling, at the end of a lengthy but lucid piece you should all read, concludes:
can say clearly that the proposals in front of Congress right now do not provide a solution, and they are both bad politics and bad strategy. Why should banks negotiate or accept regulation or taxation, if they already have access to an unlimited fund? The public, hurting from a decade where they have not seen their wages rise, and where they have now seen their chance at making money from the land casino ended, is also in no mood for this. All that is left is the threat of a financial meltdown, which will probably be found right next to Saddam's mushroom cloud, and a few doors down from the group at the Pentagon that has a secret plan to capture Osama bin Laden.
In short, the best thing the public can do, is tell Congress to shoot this turkey and start from scratch. The markets have not collapsed, nor are they in danger of taking down the economy with them. There is a recession coming anyway, one that has been predicted by almost every major source of economic analysis. And there will be plenty of time to provide monetary or fiscal stimulus in the event of a deepening down turn. However, this effort to prevent the Crash of 1929, is quixotic, ill founded, and unsupported by theory or practice. In 2002 Bush told us there were WMD in Iraq, when there was no credible evidence of anything resembling credible evidence of an advance WMD program. Tonight he will ask America for more money than funds the Department of Defense in order to engage in a project equally questionable.
So, if Emperor Paulson's trillion dollar bailout goes through, I guess we've already had our "change" then? Before the election?
Will there be ponies? I'm looking forward to my pony!
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
Told This To My Congressman Today
or at least his office. Although I don't have a lot of confidence in him after voting for FISA from his incredibly safe seat. In fact, I told his office that after the FISA vote I had lost a lot of confidence in Democrats, but this was their chance to prove they were not as corrupt as Republicans. Still, my guy decent constituent service, but on anything that matters, he's going to follow the leader. And there won't be any penalty for that because he's in a perfectly safe seat. He ran unopposed in the primary and I can't even tell you who is running against him in the GE because that person is a non-entity.
Time to beat on my favorite dead horse - these mother fuckers need primary challengers, especially the ones in the safe Democratic seats.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
especially the ones in safe Democratic seats
exactly right. Running a progressive in a swing district is tough, winners there will almost always be BlueDog material. While I welcome all Dems, on the principle that the only good Republican is a defeated one, more viable Progressives should be encouraged to run against "safe" Democratic incumbents. If there is one unifying Progressive effort to be focused on the 2010 elections this should be it, and universal health care should be the main message.
Frankly, I 'd rather have BlueDogs
run as republicans. Then at least blame can be assigned correctly. There will be no democratic agenda as long as these guys continue to vote for failed republican policies.
This is sure depressing reading here this morning. Between the dems brave new bailout plan and the rantings of Obama's BFF Kmeic, it continues to be no fun to even be a democrat.
:(