![]() |
|
Tags for This Article:
Economy-Economics- US (764) Economy Recession (359) Finance (225) Bush Appointments (220) Accountability (182) Banks (148) Bush Appointments (144) Agencies (123) Regulations (118) Appointments (68) Finance-Banking (46) Appointees (33) Henry Paulson (32) Corporations Finance (26)
|
Add to My Group
Trust former Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson as much as you trust Bush to do the right thing and tell the truth. Expect the plans to hurt consumers, take away protections, de-regulate industries, take away the influence of congress, increase partisan influence, corporate influence and protect corporations from litigation and prosecution. They're going to create new regulations for the banking industry. They're going to regulate finance and lending. CNN says this is the biggest overhaul of Financial regulation since the depression. That makes me very worried. Is there an iota of a reason why we the people should trust Bush and Paulson?
Trust them to do a competent job? Trust them to base their actions on sound criteria that will protect consumer, as compared to corporate interests? Trust them to actually increase regulations that protect instead of working under the chimera of cleaning things up, while actually weakening protections and helping big corporations. Get my drift? There is zero reason to trust Bush or former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson to do what is good for the average American, even what is good for the general US economy. Let's start with another bit of news today. TalkingPointsMemo reports, HUD Chief Reign of Cronyism Ends. Another Bush appointee, unanimously approved by congress, by the way, who got caught. Another tip of the Bush appointee iceberg. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that the 200+ page document which describes the plan is loaded with malignant changes that will hurt consumers, hurt the economy, hurt America... but help friends of Bushco. For example, one move of Paulson's changes includes consolidating agencies. Does this eliminate oversight possibilities? Does this eliminate appointees who must be approved by congress? Does this allow more partisan appointments? The federal reserve is not a government entity. The federal reserve was directly involved in the decisions which led to the current mess. What the hell is Paulson doing giving it more regulatory powers? Instead, the Fed should be stripped of powers. If any new agencies are created, they should be government agencies and the heads should be confirmed by congress. At this point, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all relevant committee heads in both houses of congress should be calling their appropriate staffers back from vacation and having them scrutinize every word of Paulson's plan. It is highly likely that Bush will present this plan as a presidential directive or something like it-- that the people of the US will just have to accept. No ****ing way. Congress should have to decide something as important as this. It is essential that regardless of the power that Bush and his rubberstamp right wing members of congress claim, that this be stopped dead.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
|