The Financial Orgy: Wall Street, The White House, and Certain Members of Congress

Recent Wall Street thief Henry Paulson is so conflicted in the latest US economic mess that he should step down as Treasury Secretary. He has proven to have only his interest and the interests of his Wall Street friends at heart. Bush is putting on the thumbscrews for Congress to be an accomplice to a $700 billion theft. And Senator Barack Obama, having freshly profited from the spoils of a financial market run amok, blames only Republicans for the mayhem.

Latest Bailout Fraught with Problems

In the year that Henry Paulson left Wall Street--2006--he received $40 million in earnings. Professional athletes don't make that

Are the noses of Obama voters so enamored by the smell of their candidate's behind that nothing can dissuade them from voting for him?

much money in one year, and they don't steal it from us, either. Now that Paulson's in the Bush administration, he's pressing hard to help his friends in the finance sector. So is President Bush.
Democrats demanded that the [$700 billion bailout] measure limit pay packages for executives of companies helped by the biggest financial rescue since the Great Depression. The administration was balking at that...

President Bush prodded Congress during the day to pass the rescue plan quickly, declaring, "The whole world is watching."
The whole world was watching when we hastily passed the monster known as the USA PATRIOT act as well. It's much harder to fix something than it is to break it, and the Bush/Paulson plan will pulverize an already broken economic system.

It's absurd how the executive branch operates--first it engineers a bailout and then it forces congress to act because "the whole world is watching".

Congress should not flinch. Congress should deny the bailout and let this economy correct itself. We have had far too many interferences by government in the economic sector, which have encouraged financial sector greed and become the primary cause of the problem that we are currently wallowing in.

Because this plan stinks anyway.
...in a fresh sign of a challenging road ahead, Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the top Banking Committee Republican, blasted the emerging plan as "neither workable nor comprehensive."

"In my judgment, it would be foolish to waste massive sums of taxpayer funds testing an idea that has been hastily crafted and may actually cause the government to revert to an inadequate strategy of ad hoc bailouts," Shelby said.

Lawmakers on both extremes of the political spectrum assailed the plan as a massive, poorly conceived bailout. Conservative House Republicans and liberal House Democrats both [and] huddled privately to express their concerns.
Thinking members of congress rightly are concerned that little is being done to punish those at the top of the financial pyramid--who, like Henry Paulson, are primarily to blame for the mess we're in. No wonder Paulson is against the idea of limiting 'executive windfalls'.
Lawmakers in both parties appeared to be coalescing around the idea that executive compensation limits should be part of the bailout, although Paulson is said to be concerned that such curbs would discourage companies from participating.
Once we were plagued by Communist infiltrators of the federal government. Now infiltrators are being inserted into the beltway from the financial sector. But this time hardly anybody cares about the problem. When Abraham Lincoln predicted that if America died it would be by suicide, I have a hunch that he was thinking about people like Henry Paulson.

A Couple More People That Obama Should Distance Himself From

How is it that an allegedly clean and upstanding Barack Obama happens to associate with dirty good for nothing thieves and terroristson a regular basis? Obama has gotten pretty good at distancing himself from a plethora of people because he claims not to have known of their previous bad dealings. Now we can add two more to the list.

In the midst of the greatest American financial

Once we were plagued by Communist infiltrators of the federal government. Now infiltrators are being inserted into the beltway from the financial sector. But this time hardly anybody cares about the problem.

crisis since the Great Depression, two of Obama's economic advisors have been shown to have illegally profited during and leading up to the current collapse. Yet Franklin Raines and James Johnson are still advisers to Barack Obama, and they are still not in jail.

Of the current economic mess, Obama
...linked the turmoil that's rocked Wall Street to federal spending he said has soared out of control during the Bush administration. That type of spending, he said, is sure to continue if McCain is elected to the White House.

"We cannot give a blank check to Washington with no oversight and accountability, when no oversight and accountability is what got us into this mess in the first place," said Obama.

Obama has benefitted handsomely from the lack of oversight and accountability, not only from the federal government, but from the American people. Do you think he will jettison Raines and Johnson like he has a host of others. Don't count on it. He knows who butters his bread.

Are the noses of Obama voters so enamored by the smell of their candidate's behind that nothing can dissuade them from voting for him?




Comments

  1. "Paulson is said to be concerned that such curbs {on executive compensation}would discourage companies from participating."

    All the more reason to put them in place. If companies choose not to participate it's because they are willing to find a way through without giving up their exorbitant salaries - which means the taxpayer won't have to foot the bill for those companies or their executive salaries.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with David's point. As soon as I heard that Democrats were pushing this provision, I thought to myself that it would create a huge disincentive for companies to participate. I think that would be a good thing.

    But the language of the bill would allow just about anything, including forcing companies to participate. The people that call themselves socialists could never have brought such a massive centralized collectivist scheme to bear. It took a GOP administration to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Everything is immoral towards the taxpayers with these bailouts. And it is not about socialism or communism. It would be communism if the government did not bail out, i.e. did not pay for those companies but expropriated them by force, by nationalizing without paying. It would be socialism if the government was acting on behalf of the people and for their benefit, if the government was acting as the defender of the rights of the taxpayers, the people who have elected it, if the government was acting with the best interests of its electorate in mind. But what we see in here is right the opposite. Our government is doing everything to defend the interests of a bunch of irresponsible individuals. Instead of punishing them for their reckless actions our government is rewarding them by saving them from demise and paying them from the taxpayers' pocket. Taxpayers who have been robbed by those individuals. And the taxpayers have no say. So this is not communism or socialism but something else. How about Gadiantonizm?

    ReplyDelete
  4. David and Reach,

    I agree that the Democrats are doing a good thing--in this case. I hope they don't cave in. I think it's important to always note who's (and who's not) doing the right thing in any case--as I'm sure you'd agree.

    Thanks for the good point.

    Anon,

    I am almost persuaded to agree with you on your definitions of communism and socialism. At any rate, I definitely agree with you that the term Gadiantonism is appropriate here!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. democrats have largely contributed to this problem....let's not politicize this thing....many individuals are irresponsible...let's lot blame the bank for bad decisions....that goes back to the devil made me do it...buck up and take responsibility here people!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. To Anonimous2.
    It is true that the Democrats have largely contributed to this problem. But what do you mean by "let's not politicize this thing"? Are you saying that politics and economy are independently functioning realms? Economy was always and is currently used to gain political power, while political power was always and is currently used to influence economy. What do you mean by "...let's lot (not, I presume) blame the bank (banks maybe) for bad decisions..."? Who are you suggesting to blame? The taxpayers? Or maybe nobody should be blamed? Then It goes down to justifying all criminals. With "....that goes back to the devil made me do it..." I think that is what you are suggesting to do. To refrain from punishing any criminal. Are you one of those by any chance. Or maybe your relatives are of those criminals or those who served and benefited from that organized crime? What do you mean with "...buck up and take responsibility here people!!!?" I think you do not understand what you are talking about. Responsibility is what we are trying to take here. You probably do not have any clue that responsibility starts by knowing the true nature of the things. By refusing to uncover the problem and those who are responsible for it is the sure way of running away from the responsibility. So you are the one who is running from it, the responsibility. So by calling us to take responsibility you either do not understand what is it all about or are wickedly trying to keep the system collapsing in order to benefit on it for a little more. The fact that you want to see many irresponsible people around you is probably because you do not want to stick out with yours (irresponsibility and wickedness) among them. I am not saying all are angels. I am also not saying all are wicked and irresponsible. I am saying that we should detect any wicked and irresponsible (criminal) we can and deal with them accordingly.

    It would be better if you clarified your position more thoroughly to avoid any misunderstandings I may have portrayed above.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Raines isn't on Obama's payroll and doesn't hold a future position in the Obama administration.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh...well....! I guess that clears up everything! You can have criminals as advisers, and you can profit yourself--AT THE EXPENSE OF TAXPAYERS--from the relationship with those criminals, but as long as they're not on your payroll...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog