I just watched Bush on CNN call for another round of legislation by the House of Representatives so they will approve a bailout for wal-street (spelling intended) again when almost every American is opposed to handing over such a large amount of money to speculator gamblers whose only drives are ambition, greed and manipulation (power).
What part of !!!NO!!! doesn't Bush, Paulson and Wal-Street understand? Why are they still pushing something the American public doesn't want, something the American public will not benefit from? Wal-street hustlers are trying to say that "Mainstreet and Wal-Street are connected," but when you look at the larger picture, Wal-Street is more connected to international bank and stock streets than to Mainstreet.
Before these masters of financial disasters say one more word, they should answer these questions:
Why the Rush?
It literally took decades to create such a debacle, why must it be immediately resolved in the window of a few days?
Isn't that how the Patriot Act was pushed through? Look at its devastating affects against civilians' civil and human liberties. Could it be that the Bush Administration is trying to give their cronies one last big giveaway?
This begs other questions: Why Now? Why Can't There Be Time for Careful Consideration and Deliberation?
The grifter financial insiders of wal-street and the Bush regime knew this was going to happen a long time ago! Why did they wait until now--in this politically and crucial time--when big elections loom on the horizon? Rep. Marcy Kapur (Toledo, OH) answers these questions very well Let's Play WallStreet Bailout:
Why Did Henry Paulson Beg on One Knee Last Saturday Before Nancy Pelosi? Why Was He Really Begging?
Could it be that he's trying to save himself? Two years ago, he was given almost half a billion dollars as a golden parachute from Goldman Sachs. Could it be that part of this "compensation" was stock options, not redeemable for a few years, and now that Sachs has crashed, his shares are worthless?
Ironic that Paulson bailed out AIG to the tune of 85 billion dollars when AIG owed Goldman Sachs $20 billion and was about to default ("Bailout Bill Defies Will of the People")
Goldman Sachs clearly benefited from the AIG bailout. Isn't this a conflict of interest? Especially if Paulson is holding devalued Goldman Sachs stock?
Most of the Congressmen, Senate, high White House officials and the Supreme Court Justices are millionaires. Some are billionaires. When the stock market drops, so does their personal worth. This is why I applaud the Congresspersons who had the guts to vote against the bailout bill, and voted for the Will of the People instead of their own personal fortunes. As for those "no show" congress representatives who didn't vote, well those gutless wonders should be voted out unless they were in the hospital.
Two thirds of the owners of the stock market and financial instruments are government entities (cafr1.com). This has been kept a secret from the people. Almost every small to large government invests in government entity pools ("rainy day" funds, pension plans, building funds, and so forth). Universities across America are invested in the same way and so are foundations. Because these groups are "non profit," they don't have to pay the same tax load that other investors have to. These "invisible" investors have been kept veiled too long. Go to any city, county, state or other entity and ask to look at their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (not the budgetary report they usually publish) and read about their investments and value of those investments. It is staggering, even on the local level. This is a Big Secret the managers of the country don't want you to know.
When the stock market goes down, the value of the government investment pools go down. Another reason why Bush & League want to prop up the stock market at the citizens' expense!
It should be noted here that these government investment pools never share the proceeds (profits), but hoard them and reinvest them to make more money. The people on the inside of this scam gain privilege, insider knowledge (to profit personally), good salaries, and job security and benefits (something most Americans don't have).
Why bail out the criminals that caused this mess?
Why should they gain one more penny on this "free market" that most of the world does not want? They got everything they bullied for: low or no taxes, deregulation, imperialistic wars for resources, crushed unions, and more. Now look where it has taken us as a world. Why should they be "bailed" out when mortgaged homes won't be bailed out, when the chronically unemployed won't be bailed out, when the sick won't have health care. The people wanting bailing out have homes, financial cushions, work and health care. Still they want more when they care nothing for the regular person--those persons the rich think they are above.
Why aren't these financial gangsters being charged with financial crimes and crimes against humanity instead of being showered with the promise of more money? This is sick. This is like a mutant form of Stockholm Syndrome where the little tyrants believe that they should be paid by the victims for all the tormenting they have done and all the suffering they have created.
Why So Much Money?
It would only cost 100 billion dollars to bail out the mortgage problems.
What do they want to do with the extra 600 billion dollars? What other trash "securities" do they need to buy up? Ah..hem.. Could it be those little nasty financial gremlins called derivatives and other exotic financial instruments? Could this be the very heart of what "needs to be fixed"? If so, why don't they tell the American people? Could it be that this part of the market--the unregulated, shadow market--is the real problem but the adult leaders of the nation don't want to tell the adult child villagers? Why? Because the problem is much worse than the 700 billion proposed or because the wheelers and dealers of wal-street want to keep their personal gambling house the way it is.
Could it be that since the Bush administration is sun-setting, the neo-cons want to leave the country pillaged to the ground so the country's infrastructure will collapse, heralding in a complete new era of corporate control of everything from education, public administration, water tables to the tolling of roads?
If wal-street gets the big money it wants, then there will be no money left for schools, universal heath care, job creation or the other important things the "little people" need and want. If wal-street gets this giveaway from the American people, the neo-cons will have succeeded in "hollowing out" the government so they can prevail in having the fascist, corporatist government they dream of.
Why did Pelosi and the Other "Leaders" say Golden Parachutes and payouts would be forbidden when there were loopholes in Monday's bill, which would have continued to allow excessive CEO compensation?
Yesterday, CNN ran an article on its website, "Golden parachutes here to stay." The subtitle says, "Advocates of financial rescue trumpet end to big exit packages for execs. But many leaving troubled firms that get help will still get to take a bundle with them."
Further into the article it says, "Under the bill, Wall Street executives who already have golden parachutes are likely to keep them even if their companies get government help. "We're not abrogating contracts," said a Treasury official who briefed reporters Sunday.
The Treasury intends to abrogate worthless security paper and contracts but it won't abrogate executives' contracts! Are these executives gods who must be treated royally?
It seems to me this bailout would just continue the financial system as "business as usual."
Why Aren't There Other Alternative Solutions on the Table?
Probably because wal-street doesn't really want to change. They will still insist on de-regulation, no or low taxation, shredding of American jobs, the hollowing out of the country's infrastructure, special treatment, so forth.
All the rich care about is bailing out themselves. They actively fight against any real regulation to rein them in. They demonize proposals for the government to hire the workless. They rail against social programs to help the destitute, many who have become destitute because of the "free" market that the rich instituted so they could get richer. But these rich people are not against government welfare for themselves.
Why Were the Captains of Wal-Street Dividing Up the Spoils Before the Bill Was Voted On?
I'm on Michael Moore's mailing list and he sent a very informative letter. He says, "Just read the first four paragraphs of the lead story
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22lobby.html in last Monday's New York Times and you can see what the real deal is:
"Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.
"Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.
"At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.
"Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury's proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions."
This shows that wal-street and all its buddies are planning to take a bundle of money from any bailout bill that should get passed. These are the same psychopathic people who caused the mess in the first place.
It makes you wonder how the contracts would be given out. Probably like the Iraq War contracts Halliburton and their ilk got: Cost plus percentage. A bonanza.
But why should fraud be handled by the fraudster insiders? How stupid can this be? It should have been proposed that neutral government employees with accounting and finance backgrounds do the work.
Ruthless, violent, predator, parasitic, laize faire capitalism got wal-street into their mess. Why pay the parasites to suck their host, the American people, drier?
Why Was There So Much Subjective Language In the Bill?
The whole bill was subjective, using vague words like "suggested." Michael Moore points this out in another newsletter I received, "It had NO teeth anywhere in the entire piece of legislation, using words like 'suggested' when referring to the government being paid back for the bailout."
Why was the bill subjective? For loopholes and crossing gray areas.
Why Were the American People Told That They Might Get Back Some Profit When They're Buying Worthless Assets (Cash for Trash)?
To make this Biggest Ripoff in the History of the World more palatable to the public. Isn't that part of the ponzi scheme: To make the suckers think they're going to make money by their investment?
I've read and heard a lot of financial commentators comment lately that the government made profits on assets seized in the Savings and Loan debacle. I don't recall ever getting a "dividend" check from those profits. I remember fighting for work during that time and living in poverty. Broke people remember when they get a check out of the blue. I didn't get to share in any of those profits, nor did anyone else. The government kept those profits!
Even if a bailout (giveaway) happens, will the people of the US receive regular statements and have a vote on how this public corporation entity operates? Will they receive profits if the worthless assets can be sold for a profit? I think not. When you really look at this, you will find that any bailout is an abstract tax increase and nothing more.
Why Was There Going to Be a "Review"? After Five Years?
By then, all the money would be gone so even if there were a negative review (and there would be), the thieves and the rich would get away with the money. Five years? Seven hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. Would a lending bank or the fed give someone that much money and say, "We'll see you in five years to inspect your books and operation of your company?" I think not.
Why Were Congressmen Locked Out of Meetings Over the Weekend?
There were many reports on the internet and radio that many representatives had been cut out of the bill-making process. Only certain key politicians wrote the bill in secrecy and then they expected Congress to rubber stamp it.
Again, the "Masters of the Universe" of Wal-street Have Committed Financial and National Crimes Plus Crimes Against Humanity. Why Aren't They Being Prosecuted For Them?
Because they think they can get away with it!
Bush also said today in his news conference that if wal-street doesn't get its bailout, then millions of Americans will suffer.
This shows how detached from reality Bush really is. Countless tens of millions of Americans are suffering terribly right now and this suffering comes from the dark side of capitalism--the side the media, financiers and the government keep hidden. What has the government done to help these suffering citizens? Nothing. One in every four children in America goes hungry every night. What about them?
The corporate-owned media giants are quick to blame the people who defaulted on their mortgages instead of wal-street and it's predatory lending practices. Michael Moore points out in one of his newsletters that many people who defaulted on their mortgages defaulted because of health care costs. Why is there all this money for the rich and none for health care?
As for those poor souls who had to default on their mortgage because of not having health insurance, they chose wisely. You can replace a house but not a human life.
Health insurance should be a basic human right but as long as capitalism rakes in huge profits from the health industry, many Americans are going to lose everything they own or are trying to own if they or a family member get sick.
The puppet masters think that since the voters have blown off steam this first round, that they won't protest so vehemently the second round. Don't let them think this! Continue to fight against any new giveaway bill to the rich! Keep emailing and calling politicians about your opposition about this!
And if you want, send this article everywhere so others will see why there can't be any bailout for wal-street. It's a Ripoff!