(11 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
My gut reaction to everything I’ve read about this financial markets crash up to the now infamous Paulson Plan has me soooooooooooooooo angry that I just don’t know what to do with myself.
Reading the provisions of this Paulson Plan produced yet another assault of shock and awe from BushCo. And the fucking Democrats? In on it. Fuck!!!!!!!!!
Jay Elias, in his essay, Why All Americans Need To Oppose the Bailout As Currently Proposed points gets right to the heart of this dark plan:
The various merits and demerits of the proposal to create a fund for the acquisition of toxic securities and derivatives by the Federal government compose a huge list. But one of the key provisions of the bill as currently proposed makes it unpalatable for any reason:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Is this insane? Are they insane? Are the American people, wholesale, so depleted, scared, unable to think that they are going to buy this crap?
I kept thinking that FUCK they’re amending the constitution without any ratification. And without any muscle from Democrats opposing.
Well, all I can tell you is started screaming when I read this fabulous and important analysis by Stirling Newberry over at GOS. nocatz recommended it and I highly recommend:
The Way Forward
I’m thinking to myself that everything I’ve read about thisGovernments then have a basic mandate to enact the good, they have mechanisms to effect that mandate, one of which is money, and they have a relationship to the people which constitutes the meaning of government. The Paulson Proposal is, in effect, an amendment to the Constitution, which states that the executive, in its sole discretion, has a mandate to prop up the financial sector at whatever cost, without review. It states that it has the mechanism of unlimited and unfettered spending power. It asserts a meaning which is foreign to virtually every part of the political spectrum, libertarians, conservatives, centrists, liberals, and socialists alike have balked at this vast grab of power which violates separation of powers, accountability, and virtually every other principle advanced for the protection of a Democracy. This much is obvious, and is obvious to millions of people. The Paulson Proposal is a demand for economic servitude.
Seriously. How do we stop this? We need to do something. Really. This has nothing to do with electing more and better Democrats. Really. Are we getting this yet? Just what the fuck is happening?
And please, don’t be fooled by pretend e-mails that express Democratic outrage. It’s a scheme to keep us on the string.
First and foremost: i’ve e-mailed everybody in my address book about this. Now let’s follow it up. What do we do from here? How do we stop this?
How do we all file for tax extensions? Change the number of exemptions on our salaries to the highest allowed. Stop the flow of tax money in any way we can.
What the fuck do we do?
17 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
i may yet exceed it. except i have to go to my second level dutch lessons starting tonight. twice a week through December.
and yet i think… how far do i go living a life that is a shadow of something swallowed whole by these monsters?
“and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency“?
I suspect “administrative agency” in this context mean “Congress”.
David Swanson this morning
Author
you know, now that i think of it, do the Dems in Washington have a secret crush on the Rethugs there? do you think Dems secretly want to be rethugs?
what the fuck, Edger? cause i don’t get it… even when i get it, i don’t get it.
…what makes it different from a Constitutional Amendment is that just because Congress says no court can review it doesn’t mean no court can review it. The MCA, for example, took away judicial review for military commissions, but the courts still ended up taking up the cases.
However, what makes it dangerous is the Supreme Court standard on judicial review as established in Youngstown v. Sawyer, which grants a higher level of deference to the inherent authority of the President when Congress has confirmed that power. All of this is in flux, however, as Youngstown will be the precedent at issue when the SCOTUS takes up the Al-Marri case (the declaration as an enemy combatant of a person captured in the United States) in the coming term.
But the $700 bill will be gone before the supreme court ever rules on it.
I’m coming to the opinion that these companies simply need to declare bankruptcy.
BTW, my suspicion is that the derivatives are worthless and we will be left holding a bag of crap if we buy these.
that has a real handle on the whole situation:
about the whole bush bailout blackmail scheme. I even called them & (ever so politely) ranted on about it. The staffers are going to pass along my concerns (sure they are).
One of them has a statement about how she’s working on getting a “bailout of mainstreet”, blah, blah. They think they can get us to swallow this crock of crap if they offer us some penny ante bribes, apparently. Hope some much more eloquent and powerful people step up & slap ’em around a bit–reminding them about how they’ve already been suckered by PT bush (more than once) including the biggest con of all–the traveling Powell WMD show at the UN and how they’re about to be suckered again.
just said on the MSNBC that they are going to pass this financial Patriot Act by the end of the week. I really don’t think the American people have any say. Were just the suckers who pay both coming and going. Dire predictions of the collapse of the world still seem to work. Jeez like the choice is do this or you’ll all die.