 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 22, 2008 at 06:16:26
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 9/22/08: by David Swanson Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
The last time the Democrats all started bleating "No blank check - No blank check" it meant only one thing. They were signing a check and scribbling a bunch of nonsense in the memo line. If history is any guide, we can expect a bill to come out of Congress requiring that the Secretary of the Treasury make a report to Congress within three months on all areas covered by the legislation, with the exception of those he chooses not to report on. In particular, he will be required, if he chooses, to report on the progress being made toward compelling families that have lost their homes to pay for their own foreclosures. Fair is fair, and the Iraqis are going to start paying for their own occupation someday very soon. The Treasury Secretary will be required to report, if he chooses, on key benchmarks, including equitable sharing among all plutocrats of our Social Security savings. This is a question of fair and equitable distribution of resources and might serve as a model for the still badly needed Iraq hydro-carbon law, which is also purely about fairness. The same goes for Medicare and the money raised from selling off our schools.
At least that's the pessimistic prediction. On the other hand, there is an important variable that has been altered in this case. We are talking about throwing a trillion dollars of our grandchildren's money at people who do not need it, but this time we're proposing to do it for something other than war. There are no flags waving or war music playing for this one. As a result, it's possible to see things like an article on CNN that begins:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- 'NO NO NO. Not just no, but HELL NO,' writes Richard, a reader from Anchorage, Alaska. 'This is robbery pure and simple,' Anna from Denver posted on CNNMoney.com's TalkBack blog this weekend. 'It's our money! Let these companies die,' added Claudio from Plainville, Conn."
Similar comments on wars are simply not published by CNN in the heat of an invasion. Will our so-called representatives notice the difference? I wouldn't count on it. The smart investment right now is in a moving van pointed toward Canada.
I just read Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew," and his central point is a timely one. When neocons wreck government they consider it a victory. Scandalous earmarks on bills are a good thing because they make people hate government, which is the higher purpose of all governmental malfeasance. When FEMA proves incompetent, success has been achieved, because the goal is to convince everyone that government is incompetent, that corporations are where all skill and responsibility can be found.
"People being pissed off at government is the very ore of right-wing discontent," Frank writes. "Corrupt earmarks, inserted by conservatives, lead to conservative victory. But, you protest, nobody really falls for this. Everyone knows that the guy who got the 'Bridge to Nowhere' earmark was a conservative Republican. People know where the blame belongs, and they punish the malefactor.
"Maybe so. But remember the long-term effects of Watergate. While the immediate consequences of Nixon's outrageous behavior were jail sentences for several conservative Republicans and the election of a bumper crop of liberals to Congress in 1974, Watergate permanently poisoned public attitudes toward government and stirred up the wave that swept Ronald Reagan into office six years later -- and made antigovernment cynicism the default American political sentiment."
All of which puts a different perspective on a government proposal to hand governmental levels of funding over to Wall Street. If the proposal goes through and the companies survive, the credit goes to Wall Street and the crushing debt requiring slashing of useful services goes to government. If the proposal fails, it also succeeds, by turning people against big government spending and interference in the Marketplace. After all, this proposal is "socialism," and if you oppose it, then you certainly must oppose such identical horrors as "socialized medicine."
For neocons, this was an easy decision. When you control the media, and your opponents are Democrats, there's almost no way for you to lose. So why wouldn't you propose borrowing a trillion dollars to hand out to your friends?
Of course, in theory, the Democrats could stop saying "No blank check" and start saying "No +&*^%!# check!" but I'm not going to hold my breath until they do.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
Democratic Opponents?
With "opponents" like these sniveling, enabling, rich-ass-kissing Democrats, who needs friends? by wagelaborer (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 307 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:16:15 AM  (0+)
|
|
Damn Right, No %$#!*@ Check!
A trillion dollar bailout is NOT a solution to a fundamentally bad economy. It's time for people to address political solutions. Obama is NOT the solution, he is the problem. With a bailout, you can forget any of his nifty social programs. But his bailout for GM will certainly go through. And we haven't yet seen how much it will cost to bail out commercial banks or other sectors of the economy. Look to McKinney or Nader and begin to develop a real agenda and organization that will address the needs of ordinary people. by Matoska (22 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 33 comments) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:28:47 AM (0+)
|
|
No damn bailouts
Enough is enough. Neither the Dems nor the Reps will come to our rescue, they have proven that over and over. But they rescue their wealthy cronies, their donors, their base repeatedly. Those folks voting for Obama, thinking magical thoughts that he will ride to the rescue, need to rethink their positions. He is a Democrat and the Democrats are up to their eyebrows in corporate pockets. Look to the credit card bill that Senator MBNA (aka Joe Biden) gave the people. No check. Can I say it more emphatically? Yes. but I will constrain myself in the public interest. Just simply say no to another taxpayer bailout of greed, corruption, venality, de-regulation and outright theft. If we want change, it must start-and end-with us. We must stand up and say no to these people. Stand and be counted in the ranks of the dissenters. As Nancy Reagan said-"Just say NO". by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM (0+)
|
|
We all know who is behind this fiasco
I think everyone knows in their heart WHO is behind this incredible Ponsi scheme. It's time we send the rag peddlers back to Krakow where they belong. by Roger Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 131 comments [10 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 5:14:45 PM (0+)
|
|
What I could do with $700 billion
Initiate an intensive program to get off fossil fuels: 1. Subsidize the building of wind and solar manufacturing plants that employ local people. 2. Train the unemployed to install solar panels and wind turbines in a WPA like program. 3. Give tax credits and loans for installation of wind and solar on private homes and businesses. 4. Build more plants to manufacture biofuels from waste products not edible crops. 5. Repair and inprove our energy distribution systems OR We could just write a blank check to the rich elites who have sunk the economy. by macdon1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:12:37 PM (0+)
|
|
But
Henry Paulson’s own firm, Goldman Sachs, is to become THE bank holding company picking up the financial wreckage now that the government is covering the bad loans and investment gambles Wall Street has made. Henry, you will always have a job with Goldman Sachs. You are the man of the DAY. by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:40:26 PM (0+)
|
|
blank checks everywhere
As the WTO protest movie (Battle of Seattle) opens in theaters this week, the same huge US firms whose funky bookkeeping led to their bankruptcy now grovel for the very bailouts the WTO would never accept to accommodate foreign firms in trouble. Curiously, there is a local measure which seeks to put my city (San Francisco) in charge of its own energy, rather than continue offering monopoly control to the tax-avoiding relic PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric), and this has also drawn the cry "No Blank Check". Not referring to the massive tax breaks which PG&E has received for decades from the city. but rather the statement seeks to provoke anxiety over a projected cost of transformation which is an issue the energy giant has raised as a fear-tactic to dissuade any change to the status quo. After nearly three quarters of a century of profiteering, these hypocrites will raise the financial objection to the voters for the city challenging its dominance, and then will use their exorbitant profits to undermine public power. So beware of who is saying "No Blank Check", and how they are saying it. Does it mean "I am fiscally conservative, or so I speak until I am convinced (i.e. bribed) to be otherwise", or does it mean "I got mine, you guys can just tighten your belts and take the loss...especially you poor slobs who couldn't afford to invest in a moretgage or a pension fund in the first place." by ladyguru (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 36 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 23, 2008 at 2:37:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Continue the American Revolution
The latest mass protests in Boston against the Bush/Paulson “corporate financial Empire’s” demands on the people are lighting a fire that this empire will live to regret. The news of mass protests from Boston is not a second Boston T(reasury) Party, but a continuation of the "outrage" against Empire that started the original Boston Tea Party! by Alan MacDonald (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 131 comments [43 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
