Monday, September 22, 2008

In case you missed it, your money was used to buy controlling interest in a private company, or two

Those Neocons -- so against socialism, unless it works in their favor. So against helping people, unless it's their people.

I've always felt that the main Neocon push is to take as much taxpayer money as possible and put it into a few rich peoples' hands.

Hows that "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, welfare mom" strategy sounding in the light of this bailout news? How many billions? How many struggling working poor could that have helped?

And... how is this not socialist???? How is this "free market?" Isn't the market, in this case, saying this company just ate it in the Darwinian race for perfection? Isn't it officially a dinosaur watching the temperature plunge? Apparently not.

Here's a recent Daily Show to lay it out for you:



Now that you're done laughing, let my friend Chuck the gun toting democrat give you his take on the situation. It's a hell of a post.

Enjoy the paradoxes of political life -- without somehow going postal,

Bp

7 comments:

Dale said...

Congratulations to all of us on our shiny new assets er, liabilities.

We "can't afford" keeping a major city from sinking into the sea, and we "can't afford" bridges that don't collapse at rush hour. Etcetera.

But we can't afford *not* to keep certain CEO's from having to forego that fourth Lexus.

Fabulous.

Bpaul said...

I do have a modicum of understanding that the ramifications of bail out extend beyond just the CEO's involved -- I do get that. However, the CEO's are absolutely getting direct benefit from taxpayer money for, basically, fucking up. I hate that.

I work not to use that word flippantly, and I hate that.

If you have the time to check out Chuck's take on the situation, the link below the video is worth a click.

Bp

Stu Farnham said...

I'm no Republican neocon, but:

I don't think there is a choice but to do some sort of a bailout. If the economic freefall is not stopped, the impact will be world wide. One of my fears is that the solution will share the same biases that the problem had, and that the right people will not be held accountable.

Under a true free market, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, AIG, etc would be allowed to fail. And so they should. The citizens and individual taxpayers are the ones who should be getting the government's protection now, not the big boys.

I think that the Democrats (and I'm fast not considering myself one of those, either) conveniently overlook that, while the roots of this mess are back under Reagan, there was a Democrat in the White House for 8 years who did nothing to stave off this disaster.

The foolishness, irresponsibility, and greed in this situation is appalling -- among the free marketeers, among the financial companies, and among the borrowers who left their common sense home when they went to the bank.

I would love to see us in a position to turn our attention to health care and to education. Perhaps the thing that makes me angriest about this mess is that it deprives us of the opportunity to do so.

Socialist? Free market capitalism is not looking so good at the moment, friends.

babs said...

lest you think I veer solely to the humour-lolz in these times, I DO read teh newz. . .oh wait, I find THAT funny too!

the shit going down this past week is part of a continuum, and the other shoefall has yet to hit pavement, but I found a fab piece in a brit-newspaper commentary that I'm passing on to y'all. . .

"The more cynical commentators in the US have already suggested that this may in fact be the whole idea behind the crisis. Buried in the fine print are some radical changes to the way that government operates, including the rather interesting notion that the Treasuary Secretary gets dictatorial powers -- his decisions can neither be challenged in court nor questioned by Congress. This is a radical power shift; it may not mean much in the UK but it undermines the very core of the Republic.
You've already found out in the UK that taking fiscal power away from local government effectively turns it into an administrative arm of central government. Democracy isn't about elections, its about power, and a bit part of that power is control over budgets. If you shift that power to a group of industry insiders -- and Mr. Paulson is an industry insider -- then you've effectively given away the store."

"buried in the fine print" - hahahhaha, like we don't know that trick by now ^^

sooo glad I read "The Shock Doctrine" at the turn of the year - everything makes sense now. . .

stay tuned, eh?

Bpaul said...

Holy crap that's a hell of a quote Babs.

I'm sure I have it in an email you sent me but I haven't gotten to yet.

Amazing.

Freaky.

Maddening.

Chuck Butcher said...

thanks for the link, it was an oversight to not acknowledge it when you did it. I've been a bit of an MIA lately.

Bpaul said...

Dude, scroll up and check out "Section 8" of the bailout package.

sit down first tho