Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 17, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Jeb Bush’s Optimism School
Climate Costs ‘May Prove Much Higher’




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
Orientalism

Orientalism

By Edward W. Said

Audition: A Memoir

Audition: A Memoir

By Barbara Walters
$19.77

more items

 
Report

Wall Street Wins Again

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 8, 2010
AP / Frank Franklin II

By Nomi Prins

The Republicans may have stormed the House, but it was Wall Street and the Fed that won the election. Regardless of party power plays and posturing, there are two constants that remain unaltered after the election. First, Wall Street will continue on with business as usual while shifting its campaign and lobbying dollars to the new winning team. And second, the Fed will keep on pretending to prop up the economy by buying more U.S. debt, thereby keeping interest rates low, the dollar weak and money cheap for the banking system to inhale. This fictional boosting of the financial economy, absent the real boosting of the general economy, will march on sans debate, inspection or restriction.

In the wake of the election, the Fed pulled off a move detected only by downtown Manhattan. It quietly announced a purchase of $600 billion in Treasury securities (read: our debt) while pundits on the left and right were dissecting the role of the tea party in political life as we know it, the Obama dissatisfaction quotient, and the chance of Sarah Palin heading for the White House in 2012.

That $600 billion figure was about twice what the proverbial “analysts” on Wall Street had predicted. This means that, adding to the current stash, the Fed will have shifted onto its books about $1 trillion of the debt that the Treasury Department has manufactured. That’s in addition to $1.25 trillion more in various assets backed by mortgages that the Fed is keeping in its till (not including AIG and other backing) from the 2008 crisis days. This ongoing bailout of the financial system received not a mention in pre- or postelection talk. No one in Congress or the White House gets a say on the maneuver. Yet, it was the Fed buying more treasuries, and not the fact that the Republicans gained control of the House, that caused the Dow to shoot to a 2010 high and bank stocks to rally 2 percent on average.

Like many other Americans, as the results of the elections were pouring in for insta-analysis I was obsessively flipping cable TV channels. It didn’t matter whether I landed on Fox, CNBC or MSNBC, the same two main items were being debated: (1) the tea party’s rise and (2) the other victorious Republicans (including the ones labeled as tea party candidates—even though they did not actually run as candidates of a separate party, a trick that progressives have never managed to pull off or even try).

All the Republicans sang their refrain from the same song sheet, vowing to work on extending George W. Bush’s tax cuts, killing what they refer to as Obamacare, cutting spending (though none gave specific details as to how) and, of course, getting Americans back to work. The catch—and this was a notion taken up by President Barack Obama and ignored by the Fed the very next day—is that the Republicans wanted to do so the free-market way, by reducing government constraints on businesses so they can stop worrying about obstacles like rules, and thus somehow spontaneously start hiring more. (Note: To underscore this strategy, CNBC paraded a bunch of chief executive officers on screen throughout the election night.)

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
But, for the most part, the Republicans left the so-called financial reform bill alone as a topic, except to make it clear, as incoming House Majority Whip (aka 2012 contender) Eric Cantor did, that they don’t want onerous regulations (it is much better to wait for the next leg of this crisis and the loss of more jobs and homes, apparently, than to bar Wall Street from financial innovation).

Here’s what wasn’t mentioned during the election or postelection chatter: the cost and logic of bailing out, subsidizing and now propping up Wall Street as it heads decisively (despite Obama’s promises of those days of fill-in-the-blank being over) to another year of record bonuses.

No winning Republican mentioned repealing the financial reform bill, since it doesn’t really actually reform finance, bring back Glass-Steagall, make the big banks smaller or keep them from creating complex assets for big fees. Score one for Wall Street. No winning Democrat thought out loud that maybe since the Republican tea partyers were so anti-bailouts they should suggest a strategy that dials back ongoing support for the banking sector as it continues to foreclose on homes, deny consumer and small business lending restructuring despite their federal windfall, and rake in trading profits. The Democrats couldn’t suggest that, because they were complicit. Score two for Wall Street.

In other words, nothing will change. And that, more than the disillusionment of his supporters who had thought he would actually stand by his campaign rhetoric, is why Obama will lose the White House in 2012.

Then, there’s the Fed. Ben Bernanke, who like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has survived two administrations under different parties to have a hand in bailing out the banking system and fictitiously stabilizing the markets, continues to run the country into the path of massive debt in the name of easing money, so as to avoid the Second Great Depression from which Obama thinks he saved us (along with Geithner and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson).

Last Wednesday morning, Obama had the chance to at least attempt to re-engage the voters who believed in his mantra of change. In his contrition speech, he took responsibility (read: apologized) for having made it seem he extended government too much (thereby taking on the language of the Republican opponents), explaining that we were in an emergency situation (not that the banks screwed up and stole the life rafts). He assured businesses he was still on their side (in case the fact that he’s keeping Wall Street lackey Geithner on and his ringing praise for Larry Summers on “The Daily Show” weren’t sufficient signs).

It is likely that, going forward, Democrats will fear losing more seats in 2012 and vote more with the pro-bank center. That would be a mistake for them and bad for the country.

Yet sadly, Obama showed pre-emptive signs of capitulation with two words: free market. Toward the end of the Q&A session after his speech, Obama said that the free market has to be “nurtured and cultivated” and that he has to take responsibility to make clear to the business community and the country that the most important thing we can do is boost and encourage our business sector and make sure that companies are hiring. His facial expression was as hollow as his words. He added that “we” have been talking to CEOs constantly (and don’t we all feel good about that?)—and that on his trip to Asia this week his whole focus will be on opening up markets, so “we can prosper, sell more goods and create more jobs in the United States” (that playbook comes from Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson, but that policy has been shown only to enable CEOs to outsource more, not less). He also pointed out that a whole bunch of corporate executives will join “us.”

And that is the second reason he will not be re-elected: Businesses won’t need to fund his next campaign when they can fund the Republicans now that they are back in vogue. Businesses will meanwhile just extract what they can as long as they can, like better deals abroad in the name of free markets—the kind that the Fed is subsidizing back here at home. Obama and his supporters will see this in 2012 if they don’t now. The president could go all out and ignore the CEOs and focus on the general populace, but signs point to the contrary. If he has learned something from the November elections about loyalty to his voters, he isn’t showing it. So maybe progressives should stop defending him and start yelling at him … or seriously look for another 2012 candidate to run against Sarah Palin.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Amon Drool, November 11, 2010 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

for an interesting post that is relevant to this thread, google steve waldman’s ‘tragedy of the technocrats’.  waldman’s last 2 paragraphs, with their emphasis on the need for integrating economics with a culture’s mores/morality, should especially be heeded by our monsieur.

Report this
politicky's avatar

By politicky, November 11, 2010 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

free market “nurtured and cultivated?  Jeeezus H Keerist!  WE are
the effing fertilizer.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 11, 2010 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

But to say it’s the littlest guy’s fault is like saying all the European wars like the 100 Years War and the 7 Years War were caused by the peasants not giving enough wealth to their feudal lords…

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 11, 2010 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

Everyone who says they know how the economy works is either deluding themselves or a liar.

And anyone who thinks there’s a single simple answer is a fool.

There are many pieces of the system, from how money is created and loaned, to what legal investment instruments are allowed, to foreign trade as a surplus or deficit, to devaluation vs inflation, to the what is drained out of the economy by taxation, to what is put back into the economy via government spending, to rates of saving, to the interest rates, to perceptions of upcoming regulations (or ending of), to employment and unemployment levels, and to fossil fuel prices.

That’s only a few of the actors.  Few of them can be accurately modeled, and economists have been trying to model the economy for a half-century with little success.

Report this

By ardee, November 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment

Lafayette, where are you?

Blaming the consumers , who are really the victims, as most rational people might understand, will bring such remarks down upon you all the time I suggest.

How many of those folks attempting to fulfill the American Dream and own their own home were capable of reading the documents they signed? Damned few if any at all. They were lied to,told that there were no balloon payments, that they were signing up for fixed mortgages in fact when they were not. They were even deceived as to the real values those home inflated beyond any reality.

When both my daughters went home shopping I offered the services of my own realtor ( an actually honest person) and attorney and thus they were able to reject several offers that reeked of such fraud. But to blame the majority of hard working consumers for the evil efforts of the corporate crooks who preyed upon them, and do so even now yet again, makes your case far too aristocratic and unworthy of anyone who believes in fairness, justice and honest business environs.

Report this

By truedigger3, November 11, 2010 at 11:05 am Link to this comment

Lafayette,

I answered your nonsense in a detailed post, but you responded, only , to one point with the same nonsense.
I noticed you are repeating the same nonsense, over and over, to anyone who respond to you.
You sound like a broken record or someone who is reading from a script and that is a tell tale singns of a troll. Who you are shilling for??!!

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 11, 2010 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

QUOTE (of a painting of a dead French fop):

“Knowing my name will not advance you one iota. I am a nobody”
______________

Yes, that’s the problem with avatars.

Avatars are not people… not natural persons.

Political events have serious consequences for natural persons, and none for avatars that don’t exist in the natural world.

Avatars are unmanned drones.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 11, 2010 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

rd: In a nutshell, you suggest a rape victim “asked for it” thus exonerating the rapist

This sort of nonsense does not even merit a reply.

You know exactly what I meant. Now rebut with a cogent reason to disagree and not tomfoolery.

Report this

By ardee, November 11, 2010 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

Lafayette, November 11 at 10:13 am

In a nutshell, you suggest a rape victim “asked for it” thus exonerating the rapist.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 11, 2010 at 5:13 am Link to this comment

BUNK

AZA: The Banksters on Wall Street are systematically making the American people into eternal and perpetual Debt Slaves.

More crackpot bunk on a forum rife with it.

Look in the mirror if you want a culprit. Who went binging on cheap-credit beyond their means to repay it? The American consumer when contracting (stupidly) credit s/he could not afford.

Yes, the regulatory authorities should have been all over Wall Street to suppress the SubPrime Mess. And, yes, next time around there will be whistles blowing all over the damn place ... should we ever go down that path again.

But that does not exclude the fact that the American consumer is largely at fault in provoking the SubPrime Less that caused the Credit Mechanism Seizure of 2008 that triggered the Great Recession of 2009.

Of course, if you are looking for a scapegoat to save your precious dignity from blame, then that is your business. But blaming banksters is not the credible reason at the source of the mess we are in.

We wanted cheap ‘n easy credit ... they gave us cheap ‘n easy credit.

They were part of the reason but the real culprit was a gullible American public who believed (stupidly) that they could make money in a real-estate bubble. In fact, some did. But they are not the ones being foreclosed nowadays.

Yes, we are the victims ... but we were willingly the victims. That makes all the difference.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 11, 2010 at 4:23 am Link to this comment

hs: where I could get a quick lesson on this kind of economics.

Try here

The dollar has lost, already, most of what it will lose.

I doubt this “quantitative easing” will have much future impact, but it is argued that since it increases the supply of money (dollars), then it should reduce its value.

(Like, for instance, deficits for which the Treasury must perpetually sell T-notes (Treasury bonds) on the market to buy-back dollars with which to cover the national debt. Which is why the Reps are insisting on lowering the national debt.

Of course, to do so, these propeller-heads are suggesting to cut Federal and state disbursement, which will simply lower Aggregate Demand (meaning consumer spending) and therefore prolong the recovery.

The alternative was Stimulus Spending that would prompt consumer Demand and also generate tax-bearing incomes, thus increasing tax revenues. But, nobody in LaLaLand on the Potomac is listening to this.

So because of their obstinacy this recession will go on longer than necessary. Of course, we, the people, elected these economic dunces into office, so we deserve the consequences. Especially is you are living abroad off a dollar pension income.

But there are other factors that are equally just as important and they have already been taken into consideration by markets.

Report this
halsmith's avatar

By halsmith, November 10, 2010 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

I looked at your bio, and I was impressed!

But I need some help understanding why this purchase by
the Fed will weaken the dollar. This affects me
directly, because I live in Costa Rica and live on my
Social Security income. Perhaps you could point me to
somewhere else where I could get a quick lesson on this
kind of economics.

Thanks

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, November 10, 2010 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

Freddy: sorry for the ‘miscue’ - you know what they say about comedy, it’s all in the timing - musical training helps

when found in proximity to your chastising another for simply citing a post at http://www.larouchepac.com, it suggests perhaps your issue with Mr. LaRouche is that he encourages children to learn Bach rather than Rock - again, musical training… you know,  that Mozart effect thingy

as for banking and government intervention history, you skip a beat: Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 did away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933,  one of the central pillars of Roosevelt’s New Deal.

of course you know the score, but then tacit this motif in your historical capsulation… curious no?

Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others’ industries,  and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.

It’s pretty clear that the real estate market modulated into an oversold variation of its former tranquillity, on the pivot chord of this very act, galloping into wholesale naked speculation, the dissonance of fictitious wealth and ultimately to the great cadence of 2008

sorry if all the musical metaphors lead to further cognitive discord - to be clear, I am not indulging in sarcasm, irony or satire - I mean it, musical training helps

Report this

By A. Z. Arrow, November 10, 2010 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

The Banksters on Wall Street are systematically making the American people into eternal and perpetual Debt Slaves. It is a rigged system with no way out, but one: 

All of this $600 billion in securities, [and more, if one takes into account “fraction banking”  -transforming $13 trillion of federal debt into $81 trillion dollar bounty in available credit-the most conservative estimate], into wealth that could be transferred to the economy as immediate available credit, and as individual cash “consumption” grants, or directly to the American economy; provided by

(a) A simple willingness to take pubic control of the Federal Reserve,

(b) Public Elections to the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve,

(c) By the using this public control to establish a new Green Back currency as a “fiat currency” based on Abe Lincoln’s “promise of the good will of the American people”.

Deduct what Wall Street’s received as a gift from TARP from what they owed in total interest… Pay them off with public Greenback Dollars, with a public currency, as Lincoln did. 

As it is now, every dollar is the private property of the Federal Bankers. You don’t own the currency you hold, you only hold, it’s debt in the form of a promissory note. We need a public currency as a foundation to under grid modern re-industrialization for the next century.

That as briefly as I can lay it out,

—>Arrow

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 10, 2010 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

djc: QUOTE (of a liberal unwilling to identify shimself, other than as an attempted self-flattering fantasy figure, Lafayette):

I am stating fact and you are employing hyperbole. De gustibus non disputandum est.

If I remain hidden behind a pseudonym it is out of respect to a man I highly admire, despite his aristocratic bearing. There are only two places in France where the American flag flies continuously. At its embassy in Paris and at the grave of the Marquis de Lafayette.

Knowing my name will not advance you one iota. I am a nobody and keenly intend to remain so.

Report this

By truedigger3, November 10, 2010 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

Re: By Lafayette, November 10 at 1:09 pm

Lafayette,

You answered ONLY one point of the many points in my answer to you and you answered it with the same bullshitting and obfuscation.
“Excuset moi”, but “impolite” language, sometimes, is the best way suitabe to express an opinion or describe a situation.
Why don’t take off those “cullottes” and that stupid wig and wear something common and go down to the streets, you might learn something or two from the common people.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 10, 2010 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

QUOTE (of a liberal unwilling to identify shimself, other than as an attempted self-flattering fantasy figure, Lafayette):

“the Mafia is an outlaw organization and the Fed isn’t.”
_______________________________________________________

That’s a lie hiding behind a clever deceit.

Government is where gangsters go to make their greatest crimes legal.

The gangsters who purchase government commit their crimes with impunity, by politically becoming too big to prosecute.

Report this

By tedmurphy41, November 10, 2010 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

Nothing changes unless you really want it to change.
You can make a positive start by being very selective in how you choose the individuals who wish to be your elected representatives(try principled and qualified for a start), moving on to the truthful reporting of all the facts as they occur, whether it upsets some people or not, and away from this pasteurised rubbish, masquerading as news, investigative reporting and paid for self advertising, that now pervades every walk of American life. You can include the UK and Europe into this present unhealthy quagmire, along with the same possible solutions.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 10, 2010 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

Wall St. did not get trillions in bail-out and, what it did get, Wall Street is paying back with interest. In fact, TARP expenditure comes to $573.4B, less than the total amount that was allocated by its legislation. 

Bullshit. How’s that language for ya?

First, the facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html

I suppose if you look at just TARP as the bailouts, one could get that false impression.

Yes, Wall Street is paying back TARP. It’s too bad they are paying it back with money they borrowed from the Federal Reserve at 0% interest. Duh.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 10, 2010 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

HEADING FOR HELL

TD: Your post is full of obfuscations, half truths and omissions that either you are brain washed or bullshit artist

This is the sort of ad hominem language that is unacceptable in polite company. But, of course, this blog is in America ... where one can get away with bloody-murder in the name of Free Speech.

Language is the vehicle of culture and yours shows why culture in America is heading for hell in a hand-basket.

TD: You blame the people who bought houses beyond their means, but that was due to the enticement and encouragement from the banks who told them you can sell the house at anytime with a profit.

Piffle. The above is a modern equivalent for adults of a plaintive child telling his teacher, “My dog ate my homework”.

They are adults, they should behave with the perspicacity of adults. But we have educated them, via BigMedia, to behave and chose like children.

The outcome was/is/will be therefore fully predictable—no wonder the American public is so malleable in opinion. It has few roots in history to form referential markers.

History was five minutes ago and prehistory yesterday.

George Santayana (paraphrased):

“Those who cannot (learn from) the past are condemned to repeat it.” .

... and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 10, 2010 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

And Lincoln started his green backs.

Lincoln started the National Bank Act of 1863 to allow banks to buy US Treasuries to fund the Civil War. He also enacted a 10% tax on all Bank Notes other than Greenbacks (1865). This effectively killed free banking in this country. The NBA was responsible for every “Panic” up to, and including the Panic of 1907. The Federal Reserve Act fixed all of that, and gave us the Mother of all Panics, The Great Depression. FDR fixed that by creating the FOMC, which has given us bubbles, including the mortgage bubble.

It’s been one government intervention after another to “fix” the economy. I’m glad my mechanic doesn’t fix my car the way the government fixes the economy.

http://c4ss.org/content/3202

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 10, 2010 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

thebeerdoctor

If you want to know what kind of financial fraud the Fed, Wall Street and associates continue to cook up, read NOMI PRINS.

Please. After reading this article, I wonder exactly Ms Prins did at Goldman, scrub toilets and empty wastepaper baskets? This article is nothing but Red Meat, or should I say, Veggie Pitas.

Here’s a real trader, Mark Fisher, who says:

Parabolic moves have Parabolic corrections. This is going to end bad. It is not a matter of if, just a matter of when. This is going to be the ultimate bubble, this is going to make 2000 look like a cakewalk. This is going to be the bubble of all bubbles.

and

The fallacy in the whole thing is that you are not going to go ahead and create jobs just by pushing up the market by 20%, 15%.  In fact, to some degree by pushing up commodity price to levels that are going to be obscene, which is what is going to happen, you are hurting everybody in mainstream America…

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/mark-fisher-slams-bernanke-qe-going-end-badthis-going-be-bubble-all-bubbles

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 10, 2010 at 7:11 am Link to this comment

eir,

Please don’t tell me you linked to a Lyndon LaRouche site.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 10, 2010 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

fearnotruth

Obviously, you have misunderstood my point. Many people will tell you it was WWII that ended the Great Depression. So, it follows that those same people would recommend a major war to end our current economic woes???? Follow? I was being sarcastic.

Report this

By ardee, November 10, 2010 at 6:30 am Link to this comment

Worth repeating…credibility issues.

Hey Patriot would you mind linking to proof of your statement:

“Obama made a statement about the plan to force enlisted people to have to pay for their own medical costs; being “whiners”; stating that it’s voluntary; it’s service to “their” country; “

I smell something downwind…..

Oh patriot, hello, hello….anyone there?

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, November 10, 2010 at 4:22 am Link to this comment

If you want insight into what mercenary armies do for the U.S. government, read articles by Jeremy Scahill.
If you want to get an idea of what the Pentagon has planned, regardless of who sits in the White House, read Nick Turse.
If you care to fathom the depths of fraud created when municipalities decide to privatize public services and assets, read Matt Taibbi.

If you want to know what kind of financial fraud the Fed, Wall Street and associates continue to cook up, read NOMI PRINS. Like President Eisenhower’s famous military industrial complex warning, she speaks as someone who actually lived inside the belly of the beast.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, November 10, 2010 at 3:56 am Link to this comment

...“skirmishes” in the Middle East…? Small potatoes.

i.e. small brown vegetables? kill a million and you barely miss them…

War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says

By Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 22, 2007

CHICAGO, Sept. 21—The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could
buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or
could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the
American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large
banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the
group’s analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E.
Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

“The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and
spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their
lives,” said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a
peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.

The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war
supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in
incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, November 10, 2010 at 3:12 am Link to this comment

“The bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.”

—Andrew Jackson

The bankster / money changers tried to kill Jackson THREE times… and failed.

He killed them in his time and for some time ( read your history, for it is to our collective shame some don’t know what or why it is we think we are calling ‘money’ money, for it is a debt instrument, a note, as it states… it has been stripped of any value and we are ‘bonded’ to the principle and interest of every dollar in existence ).

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, November 10, 2010 at 3:05 am Link to this comment

Ladies and Gents…

Let us remember we are the surety for the nation’s debts… and our chattel handlers, the FED, sift and manipulate the markets at will since they inflate, tax ( set interest rates ) and do other such things such as fractional reserve lending and such…

Since the departure from silver and gold…

And since the the departure of Congress from voting on going to war / declaring war since after WWII…

And since the FED was instilled early last century….

And since the world has experienced and economic coup unparalleled in the past…

Isn’t any wonder most folks cannot see past the charade and farce of our two / one party system?

OF COURSE Obama kowtowed to the money changers… JFK decided NOT to.  James Garfield was another one… And Lincoln started his green backs.

OF COURSE we see the market inflate… for those with capital are safe… while those who work for the fiat are $@#%%#!

Are we not seeing the exchange of purchased power?

Report this

By truedigger3, November 9, 2010 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment

Re:By Lafayette, November 9 at 11:56 pm

Lafayette,

Your post is full of obfuscations, half truths and omissions that either you are brain washed or bullshit artist, however, I give you credit for admitting that you are a DLC and Obama loyalist.

You blame the people who bought houses beyond their means, but that was due to the enticement and encouragement from the banks who told them you can sell the house at anytime with a profit. The banks and Wall St. wanted just to sell mortgages then bundle them in securities and sell the securities to the unsuspecting investors and then the bankers collect hefty bonuses.
Tha banks got a fraudlent AAA ratings for these securities knowing damn well many of them are worth much less than their nominal values and some of them were outright worthless.
Those questionable securities with dubious values, were then used as bases for more securities and collateral for billions of dollars worth of insurance policies etc etc.
It was pyramid ponzi scheme no more no less courtesy of your Wall St and the banksters.
That is how the economic debacle started and progressed and the rest is history.
All that happened when your beloved Geithner was governer of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY whose main duty and responsibilities were to keep an eye on Wall St. and the banks and watch out for any irregularities or shenaningans. He looked the other way and did nothing despite the hollering and shouts of wanrnings from many economists. I say that was a case of outright collusion between him and Wall St. and the banks. Is he the only economist with what you call “field experience”?!

You wrote:
“More emotional blathering. Wall St. did not get trillions in bail-out and, what it did get, Wall Street is paying back with interest. In fact, TARP expenditure comes to $573.4B, less than the total amount that was allocated by its legislation. 

Numskulls keep ranting about the Wall Street bail-out as if it were a hand-out. It wasn’t.”
__________________________________________________
That $573.4 B was the part that came from the Treasurey, however they got more than a trillion Dollars from the Feds with almost 0% interest rate and they turned around and bought Treasury bonds from the government that pay about 3% and they call that “now we are profitable”. That is pure bullshit.!

Report this
morongobill's avatar

By morongobill, November 9, 2010 at 11:02 pm Link to this comment

As the young people say, I am “so done” with this empty suit that passes for a president.

If we wanted Bush Lite we’d have voted McCain/ Palin.

However, there is a chance the teacher-in-chief can redeem himself.

Hope truly springs eternal out here on the left coast.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, November 9, 2010 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

Your link was bad, doublestandards, but I found it eventually. Very thoughtful piece, thanks. It wasn’t too badly biased against Obama. Except…

“And he still has not come out and said that America needs anything except more debt…”

In fact, he has. In his first State of the Union address:

“The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank. We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform. Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for. And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.”

The President, mere months after taking office, with the economy on the brink of total meltdown, spelled it all out: irresponsible debt accumulated by citizens, corrosive medical costs, no viable energy policy, diminishing competitive advantage, a declining infrastructure, war. Just for starters.

“In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity.”

A $600 billion Treasury purchase obviously has significance. To focus on it entirely is to succumb to the short-term view which Obama committed himself AGAINST.

“Now is the time to act boldly and wisely - to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do”

Has he had 100% success? No. Housing has been stubborn, and banking has been problematic, in part because of irresponsible bankers and irresponsible borrowers.

But the decline of jobs has stopped. A foundation for controlling health care costs is in place. Consumer protections are in place. Civil rights are advancing. The President is investing in alternate energy. There’s new automotive technology driving down your street. The federal deficit declined, despite an immense bailout, tax cut, and investment program. Mid-east conflagration may be getting under control, instead of being out of control.

You can do better? Really?

Oh, and record profits for Wall Street. That means something, huh.

You realize there were also record profits for insurers, for oil companies, for the airline industry, for Allied Motion which makes motion sensors, for Microsoft…

If President Obama fails to get re-elected, it won’t be because he doesn’t understand the economy as well as media pundits.

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, November 9, 2010 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Economist Michael Hudson talked about what this $600 billion deal means and why it was done, on democracynow last Friday: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/5/new_600b_fed__stimulus_fuels_fears

There is also a transcript of the talk at alternet.com

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 9, 2010 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

JUST THE FACTS, MA’AM

Your shot-gun comment merits rebuttal item by item:

TD: According to your flawed logic, then the best results can be obtained for a city is by appointing the top Mafia bosses and Drug Dealers to the key positions in the police force.

Not a bad idea … except that the Mafia is an outlaw organization and the Fed isn’t.  So, no I wouldn’t hire the Mafia to investigate the Mafia. And, of course, it is not even necessary. Nabbing them on tax evasion is so much easier.

Still, if you ever hired anyone for a job, you’d know that the position of Treasurer should go to someone with fieldwork experience and not an academic like Summers. I maintain that Geithner was the right guy for the job, despite the fact that he was overseeing the mess when it happened.

Geithner was managing the Fed’s role according to the custom of the time when the Fed was not doing the adequate market oversight investigative work. Had it done so, it would have seen the Toxic Waste coming.

But how is that Geithner’s fault? Blame it on someone else.

Like Greenspan who made four presidents believe the bullsh*t that “finance markets are self-regulating”.  Right, like whenTNT is dropped it bounces instead of exploding.

Was the financial regulations enforced and improved by Geithner, summer et al??!!

Bad English. Take your meds before commenting.

There was insufficient Financial Regulation before the Obama administration came into office. And real culprit is the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act that separated investment banking from commercial banking.

When they put those two together, what happened had to happen. It was a Perfect Storm, just like the one that brewed before 1929 to which it was almost identical.

It was Wall Street hubris to think that the 1929 debacle could not recur in our times.

Wall St. got trillions of dollars in bail-out and under the counter money from the FEDs and Main St. got almost nothing.!!

More emotional blathering. Wall St. did not get trillions in bail-out and, what it did get, Wall Street is paying back with interest. In fact, TARP expenditure comes to $573.4B, less than the total amount that was allocated by its legislation. 

Numskulls keep ranting about the Wall Street bail-out as if it were a hand-out. It wasn’t.

Main Street got shafted, yes. But, if by this you mean Jack ‘n Jill America, they were part and parcel of the credit binging that first blew the bubble up and then burst it. 

So, neither are they entirely innocent.

I bet you are still a big admirer of the DLC and its darling, Obama!

Unless you’ve got a better alternative, which doesn’t exist - yes, kinda …

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 9, 2010 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

frecklefever

It’s the Joos. Blame the Joos.

http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/billy_mays_caps_lock/

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 9, 2010 at 5:55 pm Link to this comment

And the last 10 years of it have been great?

You would compare the “skirmishes” in the Middle East to WWII? Small potatoes.

Report this

By truedigger3, November 9, 2010 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

Re: By Lafayette, November 9 at 7:35 pm

Lafayette wrote:

“Geithner was head of the Fed in NYC during the crisis and understood it better than most people. It would have been hard to overlook such experience, in the middle of the financial maelstrom, when seeking people to help improve and enforce financial regulations.

His input in the process of making the financial regulation legislation was key. His choice as Treasury Secretary was thus the right one and it still is, despite Ms.Prins’s invective.

The accusation that he, Summers et al subsequently supported and advanced favoritism to Wall Street finance chieftains is a misinterpretation of history to justify the prevalent hysteria that BO & Co sold out to the financier class. Possible, but implausible.”
_____________________________________________________

REALLY!! NO KIDDING! Are you serious.
According to your flawed logic, then the best results can be obtained for a city is by appointing the top Mafia bosses and Drug Dealers to the key positions in the police force.
Was the financial regulations enforced and improved by Geithner, summer et al??!!
Wall St. got trillions of dollars in bail-out and under the counter money from the FEDs and Main St. got almost nothing.!!
I bet you are still a big admirer of the DLC and its darling, Obama!!!

Report this

By frecklefever, November 9, 2010 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

BANKS ASCENDANCY COME FROM ITS HOARDING CAPITAL BY WAY OF
COMPOUND INTEREST…RELIGIONS HAVE WARNED AGAINST IT BUT
MAMMON WON OVER THE GREEDY..BE CREATIVE BY REFUSING TO FEED
THE BEAST..BUY ONLY SIMPLE INTEREST LOANS AND STARVE OUT THE
MONEYH CHANGERS..

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, November 9, 2010 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

War is good for the economy.

And the last 10 years of it have been great?


And China’s pissed.

Of course - ‘Begger My Neighbor’ (via currency war) tends to piss off your neighbor


...the Mother of All Conspiracy theories.

why not, after this everyone’s got a gun to their head
An American Coup D’état – First World Nation Style
Submitted by Cognitive Dissonance on 11/09/2010 12:11 -0500

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/american-coup-d’état-–-first-world-nation-style

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, November 9, 2010 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

JUNK JOURNALISM

NP: ... so as to avoid the Second Great Depression from which Obama thinks he saved us (along with Geithner and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson).

Fiddle-faddle.

Geithner was head of the Fed in NYC during the crisis and understood it better than most people. It would have been hard to overlook such experience, in the middle of the financial maelstrom, when seeking people to help improve and enforce financial regulations.

His input in the process of making the financial regulation legislation was key. His choice as Treasury Secretary was thus the right one and it still is, despite Ms.Prins’s invective.

The accusation that he, Summers et al subsequently supported and advanced favoritism to Wall Street finance chieftains is a misinterpretation of history to justify the prevalent hysteria that BO & Co sold out to the financier class. Possible, but implausible.

Unless one subscribes to the Mother of All Conspiracy theories.

And that is the second reason he will not be re-elected: Businesses won’t need to fund his next campaign when they can fund the Republicans now that they are back in vogue.

One mid-term election makes a “vogue”? Since when? 

Bitter apples, that’s all, without any reflection whatsoever upon the fact that mid-terms always whack incumbents. Did Clinton’s 1994 loss of 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate prevent him from being reelected? Of course, not.

Conclusion: C+ journalism, not more. This work is emotional and proactive—and little more.

Which is a shame. In some respects Ms Prins is spot on about Finance having been given too much of a free hand in its hell-bent passion for financial engineering. (Thank you, Robert Rubin for having convinced Silly-Billy to sign the demise of Glass-Steagall into law.)

And a great many of us are Over-The-Top with Wall Streets hallucinatory bonuses – just because they are at the right place at the right time. But who is proposing increasing taxation across the board to kill cupidity in the bud, where it should be stopped – that is, in net take-home compensation.

Above a certain threshold, the sky should NOT be the limit. And certainly not marginal income tax rates at a ludicrously low 37%. Dammit, for 63% net take-home, some people in the US would kill their grand-mothers.

POST SCRIPTUM

The US is one of the fewest nations on earth with the unjust notion that unbridled income earnings should be taxed at minimal levels. This belief is a cornerstone (in a political house fabricated upon dogma) of a faith that exalts individual achievement.

When there is no cogent reason to do so. The Trickle-down Economy,  according to Reagan 30 years ago, was going to better the lives of all Americans? Thirty-years on and we’ve witnessed the results. Increased profits for the rich and increased precariousness for the poor and lower-middle classes.

And we just reelected into control of the lower chamber of Congress those who espouse that faulty economic philosophy.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 9, 2010 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

FRTothus

“If money is the root of all evil, what is the root of all money?”

- Ayn Rand

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 9, 2010 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

stabilizing the markets, continues to run the country into the path of massive debt in the name of easing money, so as to avoid the Second Great Depression from which Obama thinks he saved us

I disagree. Bernanke is trying to inflate away our debt, and the Chinese know it. Also, as the USD is devalued, all of those toxic assets will magically become worth more.

Look, we do not need more regulations. We need to take insolvent, zombie banks, like BoA, and place them in receivership, open their books, unwind them, and sell them off at firesale prices. The “buyers” of those discounted assets will grow the economy.

This is nothing but a hit piece, with no real solutions, or insight. Yeah, Wall Street wins. Ha. So what? What are you going to do about it, cry? I am so sick of Democrat whiners. You want an answer? Do you? Stop playing partisan politics, and listen to someone who actually cleaned up a banking mess.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/bill-black-and-l-randall-wray-demand-bank-america-finally-open-it-books


The problem is going to be inflation. In fact, it is already here. Look at commodity prices across the board over the past 3-4 months. I’m not talking gold and silver, I’m talking about wheat, and soy, cattle, almost every commodity is up significantly. Is it a bubble? No. Look at the USD index in that same period. How long before those high commodity prices find their way into retail food prices? Sara Lee is already expressing concerns. Commodities are not going up, the dollar is going down. However, there may very well be a bubble in commodities if the Fed continues do debase the currency. A spike in commodities will crash the dollar.

The government can print money, but it can’t print wheat.

- Rick Santelli, CNBC

But debasing the currency is good for the economy. If people know that prices are going to go up, they will spend money today. That was FDR’s solution out of the Great Depression. Bernanke should know, he’s an expert on the Great Depression.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

So, I guess a major war, like WWII is next on tap? China, maybe? Iran? War is good for the economy.

Report this
Fat Freddy's avatar

By Fat Freddy, November 9, 2010 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

In the wake of the election, the Fed pulled off a move detected only by downtown Manhattan.

Not really. It was detected in China, Japan, and Germany, as well. And China’s pissed.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-downgrades-us-again-aa-outlook-
negative-sees-long-term-recession-blasts-qe2-expects-cr

GLTR, Bitchez

http://www.etfsecurities.com/us/document/downloads/ETFS_Fact_Sheet_Physical_PM_Basket_us.pdf

Report this

By FRTothus, November 9, 2010 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

Capitalism is the crime.

“[C]orporate America [is] intent on eliminating taxes on all capital incomes. Nor do they care if record budget deficits are the result. Many of their more right-wing friends, including those in Congress, actually want larger deficits. They see chronic, record deficits as producing the budget crisis necessary to use as an excuse to privatize Social Security and dismantle what remains of the Roosevelt New Deal programs of the 1930s.”
(Jack Rasmus)

” [T]here seems to be nothing to prevent the transnational corporations taking possession of the planet and subjecting humanity to the dictatorship of capital…. In order to crush any thought of organized resistance to the supporters of the new world order, tremendous police and military forces are being used to establish a doctrine of repression….”
(Christian la Brie, Le Monde Diplomatique)

“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all.”
(John Maynard Keynes)

“The most formidable military machine depends ultimately on the obedience of its soldiers, ... the most powerful corporation becomes helpless when its workers stop working, when its customers refuse to buy its products.
The strike, the boycott, the refusal to serve, the ability to paralyze the functioning of a complex social structure - these remain potent weapons against the most fearsome state or corporate power.”
(Howard Zinn)

“Perhaps, you have a responsibility to be informed, to know for yourself. To know the truth. And then, perhaps you must decide with your own conscience and your personal energy and your resources what you should do.”
(Isabel Allende)

Report this

By truedigger3, November 9, 2010 at 11:05 am Link to this comment

Re:By patriot10101, November 9 at 9:15 am

Outrageous and inaccurate claims make a person loses his credibility even when most of what he is saying is true.
Yes, Obama turned out to be a fraud and a pretender and a great disappointment and letdown to many people, however when you make this outrageous allegation:

“Obama made a statement about the plan to force enlisted people to have to pay for their own medical costs” nobody will take you seriously after that. Can you back that up?.

Also, you wrote this completely fasle statement:
“Insurance companies “in the know” do not cover one single claim: don’t have to! Coverage CEASES the moment you or any on the claim have something wrong!

Insurance companies might try not paying for certain prodedure or stall for sometime or they might refuse to renew the insurance if it turned out the claimant got a chronic costly disease, but never they, the instant a person presents a claim that they they terminate the insurance. That is purt bullshit and you lost your credibility with a lot of people.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, November 9, 2010 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

Wall Street is the holy temple of Capitalism which has been preached from the American political pulpit as being synonomous with democracy - why should it surprise anybody that it prevailed in spite of social justice, and the welfare of the common people? Why should it surprise any thinking person that it subverts the very democracy with which it has been identified, and because it has been so identified? The blind disciples of this Cult of Money are now outraged at their God and totally disillusioned. I think this self-deprogramming is a good thing. Hopefully the people won’t surrender their minds to it again.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, November 9, 2010 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

... and the sub-headline “You Always Lose”.

This article is propaganda. Do not believe it.

How can you tell? How about this: “It quietly announced a purchase of $600 billion…”

Quietly, huh. Did “it” whisper? Interesting characterization coming from the messenger, wouldn’t you say?

The media is broken and this is one of the pieces.

There are plenty of legitimate concerns about the economy, but you need to understand the difference between someone informing you and someone stroking you. When the “facts” are presented to you with characterizations such as this, suspect the agenda of the author, and go find objective information.

Decide FIRST what you WANT to know, and then find out the facts about that. Do not assume the author is telling you what you NEED to know because the author couches numbers around cushy adverbs.

Report this

By cynholt, November 9, 2010 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

I find it rather ironic that Obama says he’s trying to create more economic ties with India in order to boost jobs here in the US, while at the same time he is letting American corporations get away with outsourcing jobs to India. But hey, I shouldn’t expect anything different from a man whose only claim to fame is being able to get away with doing the opposite of what he says he’ll do. And it helps that he is firmly embedded in the back pockets of some the biggest outsourcers of jobs on this side of the pond.

Report this

By ardee, November 9, 2010 at 6:21 am Link to this comment

I offer that the election did nothing to alter the power of Wall Street and the Financial Community over our governments decision making. They were in control before and remain in control now.

Hey Patriot would you mind linking to proof of your statement:

“Obama made a statement about the plan to force enlisted people to have to pay for their own medical costs; being “whiners”; stating that it’s voluntary; it’s service to “their” country; “

I smell something downwind…..

Report this
race_to_the_bottom's avatar

By race_to_the_bottom, November 9, 2010 at 1:43 am Link to this comment

So the Fed will create, with the click of a computer mouse, $600 billion to buy treasuries. Where can this money go? Some could go to inflate the commodities markets, maybe gold, or maybe wheat. Who knows.

But If you are sitting on a pile of treasuries and sell them to the Fed, it seems likely you would be buying stock. Hence, watch for stocks to bubble up.

Observe how the Fed is able to create money at will. Couldn’t the Fed just as well buy 0% bonds from the states to ease the crisis there? Couldn’t the Fed just keep rolling over that debt indefinitely if necessary?
Why not?

Report this
race_to_the_bottom's avatar

By race_to_the_bottom, November 9, 2010 at 1:41 am Link to this comment

So the Fed will create, with the click of a computer mouse, $600 billion to buy treasuries. Where can this money go? Some could go to inflate the commodities markets, maybe gold, or maybe wheat. Who knows.

But If you are sitting on a pile of treasuries and sell them to the Fed, it seems likely you would be buying equities. Hence, watch for stocks to bubble up.

Observe how the Fed is able to create money at will. Couldn’t the Fed just as well buy 0% bonds from the states to ease the crisis there? Couldn’t the Fed just keep rolling over that debt indefinitely if necessary?
Why not?

Report this

By cruxpuppy, November 8, 2010 at 11:38 pm Link to this comment

Hey, rico,suave, Nomi Prins made her bones on Wall Street, at Goldman, and she knows what she’s talking about.

But you’re right, there was nothing quiet about Bernanke’s 600 billion QE for a small sector of Americans, such as yourself who pay attention to financial news without really understanding what it means.

Stock market bubble. Asset bubble. Short term, stupid money followed by a resounding crash. More of the same we have just witnessed.

But I must admit, if Bernanke can re-inflate the housing market for a year or two, he may save my ass! I’ll take stupid money as opposed to none.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, November 8, 2010 at 11:36 pm Link to this comment

And we haven’t even gotten to this years Wall Street Bonuses yet…

I wonder why Big B. waited until after the election for this one?

Report this

By eir, November 8, 2010 at 11:02 pm Link to this comment

Nomi Prins, serves the interests of most of TD’s readers, as opposed to the usual, vacuous WaPo hacks who continually try to manage the mass delusion they’re paid to manufacture and maintain.

Any decent president must be willing to to take a bullet.  Most of our best have, if they had not already faced the hangman’s noose for treason to the Crown.

Report this

By radson, November 8, 2010 at 10:01 pm Link to this comment

Nomi Prins
Where were you before the mid-terms ?Rfidler are you a corporatist idiot ?How about a game of monopoly and the top prize is a FIAT!

Report this

By REDHORSE, November 8, 2010 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment

I DIG NOMI PRINS!! I hope they post a lot more of her articles on TRUTHDIG.

      I’m scared to death. Obama took us out of the fryin’ pan and put us right in the fire. What does the term Democrat even mean. Who are these people?

Report this

By chip, November 8, 2010 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

Nomi Prins is a Ex Goldman Sachs employee.
She is a True American Hero.
Unlike most who sell their soul and our country out for a buck.

Report this

By the worm, November 8, 2010 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

There is one thing and one thing only that we Democrats need to keep in mind:

It was President Obama who re-appointed Bernanke.

Pure and simple, the heist continues. And instead of telling us how all these
‘problems’ we inherited, we know for certain that while Bush appointed
Bernanke once, it was the psuedo-Democrat, President Obama, who appointed
him the second time.

This continuation of Bush-era approaches is consistent with Obama’s other
actions: Kept Bush advisors in the Economy - Geithner, Paulson, Summers; the
“War on Terror” and “preventive (pre-emptive) war” -  Gates, Patreaus; and gave
all the Bushies a pass on torture.

The political career of this President is effectively over and we Democrats need
to ‘move on’ (if you’ll pardon the expression). It is time to ask Obama to
announce early that he will not seek a second term.

While we appreciate him ‘doing what he thinks is right’, it is not what is right
and not what we voted for.

Some examples (big ones):

1 The American people wanted a government administered plan like Medicare -
for everyone. (72% - CBS/New York Times poll June 2009)

1A. Democrats gave private sector insurers a windfall: mandated customers,
with a taxpayer-paid overhead rate of 20% for ‘mandated customers’ (20% of
our premium spent on administration, CEO salaries, bonuses, Boards to set
rates and decide who’s covered and ‘profits’).
2 64% of the American people opposed expanding the war in Afghanistan and
wanted to disentangle from Bush-era ‘War on Terror’ and ‘preventive war’
policies.
2B. Democrats gave us an expansion of the war in Afghanistan.

3 The vast majority of Americans opposed the transfer of taxpayer wealth to
cover private company debt – the bailout.
3B. Democrats kept the 6 too-big-to-fail banks – now bigger than ever; kept
deposits at risk by maintaining huge grey areas between commercial and
investment banking; didn’t ‘punish’ the financial industry - now even more
profitable, with bonuses among the biggest ever.

Please, announce early so we can find a viable candidate for 2012.

Here are two stupid moves right after the election fiasco:

A   The day after the election, the White House’s Director of Management and
Budget, Peter Orszag, in a NYTimes OpEd tells the voters this whopper:

“There are four ways to contain health care costs:
by reducing payments to providers and suppliers;
by rationing services;
by having consumers pay a greater share; and
by giving providers incentives to be more efficient.”

A savings of 15% or more can be achieved through a government-administered
plan like Medicare - for everyone. (And by the way, a CBS/New York Times poll
June 2009 showed that 72% of Americans favored this approach.)
The quickest, easiest and sane way to save is move to a single payer system.

B.    Leave the country. Yes. Leave the post-election agenda setting and the
airwaves to the Republicans. This is consistent with Obama’s approach to health
care reform - avoid the situation, let others control the agenda, let others
frame the issue and gain momentum. Then, step in a declare victory (Of course,
no one will believe you.)

Please, announce you are not running for a second term ! Enough !

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 8, 2010 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

“It quietly announced a purchase of $600 billion in Treasury securities”

Quietly announced!!! Quietly announced!!!

Maybe it wasn’t picked up by The Nation or The Village Voice, or the “alternative” press birdcage liners found outside your local free clinic, but it was all over the major adult news outlets.

And it wasn’t “twice” the prediction. The prediction was $500 billion.

And damn, the stock market went up making more stockholders richer. Damn!!!

“Obama showed pre-emptive signs of capitulation with two words: free market.” Oh!!!! The horror!!

Who the hell is Nomi Prins? Some undergrad at Berkeley?

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, November 8, 2010 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment

RE: So maybe progressives should stop defending him and start yelling at him
… or seriously look for another 2012 candidate to run against Sarah Palin.

you betcha except it won’t be useful-fool Palin, it will be thinking-
man’s-war-monger Petraeus

and the Democrats won’t field anyone close to a real progressive (e.g. DeFazio or
Kucinich) - their role (as manipulated from the shadows) will be to mount a
guaranteed looser

Report this

By berniem, November 8, 2010 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

The RIGHT’S win means that there will be nothing LEFT!

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook