www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This Is What Democracy Looks Like
www.NationalView.org's Note From a Madman
November 17, 2008
"Turned a Corner" as the New "Stay the Course"
"Turned a corner". That's the new phrase being used as The Administration of
Diminished Responsibility begins its going out of business sale and as it enters
its final moments.
(I don't even see a corner!)
Sounds a bit like "Stay the Course," doesn't it?
Anyone who has been paying attention has noticed that members of the Bush
administration have used quick one-liners from day one of their time in office
for easy control over the US masses in an attempt at controlling the headlines
during that time. We've heard things like "the rising tide will lift all boats,
it just hasn't happened yet" and "the fundamentals of the economy are good" and
watched as those were the last words at a press conference or used as "the
message of the day" during the various talking head cable news shows.
Today, Secretary of the US Treasury Henry Paulson is using "turning a corner" in
exactly the same way "stay the course" was used as a reason to keep our troops
in harm's way in Iraq. And it's galling.
Paulson and SEC Chairman Ben Bernanke are appearing before Congress as they
(Congress) exercise our right to oversight over the $700 billion earmarked for
the financial industry. During that time, Paulson said he believes that we've
"turned a corner" in our attempt to stop the bleeding the mortgage and housing
crisis took to catastrophic proportions under their, and their Bush
administration predecessors' watch.
Have we really turned that corner? Certainly the bankers don't feel that way.
All one has to do is sneak-a-peek at the various market indicators to see it.
Just yesterday Citigroup announced that it was "laying off" some 35,000 of its
workers. Add that to already obscene number of Americans jobs lost this year
(1.2 million) and those of us who have really been paying attention have to ask
the question, "Huh?"
The idea of the $700 billion was to get credit dollars revolve around the nation
again. So far, the nearly $300 billion spent to that end hasn't done a thing
towards its end. But what's been worse is that those same giant financial
corporations have decided that the best way they can "contribute" to fixing the
economy is to fire many of their workers.
However, the financial giants aren't firing those who've made the bad decisions
they made with our retirement accounts and such - they're firing their middle
class workers instead. CEO's will still get their big bonuses as will those
directly under them.
And they're going to get those big bucks with our $700 billion.
Why, this is a great country after all... for them!
Paulson and Bernanke are appearing before Congress in an attempt to sway the
body not to give $25 billion of their financial friends' dollars to US
automakers - the largest employer in the United States. And Paulson is using
fear and intimidation as a warning to the Congress as he attempts to keep the
money earmarked for his pals in his pals' wallets:
"If we have learned anything throughout this year, we have learned that this
financial crisis is unpredictable and difficult to counteract,"
-Paulson
Is the Secretary of the Treasury suggesting that if we used what amounts to 3.5
percent of the allocated $700 billion to save our nation's largest employer that
his banking buddies will get so furious that they will make the financial crisis
they, and the Bush administration created worse?
How much worse can it get? Revolutions began under better circumstances!
It's no wonder that Paulson's original bailout plan excluded any kind of
Congressional oversight at all. Think back to the original proposal by the Bush
Treasury Secretary. Do you remember it ye? Allow me to refresh your memory: The
original three-page Bush-backed Banking bill gave Paulson charge over our $700
billion with no oversight nor any Judicial or Congressional review.
The 3.5 percents keeping US auto giants General Motors and Ford in business.
This, in turn, will help keep many of their employees in jobs which our economy
simply can't afford to lose. The 3.5 percent, if it were truly the
difference-maker that Paulson wants us to believe it is, could partially be
eased by CEO's and other corporate officers refusing to take their bonuses or
returning their ill-gotten bonuses of 2007 which were based on their own faulty
and inflated numbers.
In the end, I'd rather not bail out anybody and allow the free market to cleanse
itself. But the situation we are in today requires that we save the jobs of the
many and the expense of the whole (the entire nation). Directing all of the
money towards the financial industry while they lay off their workers and
refusing to save our nation's largest employer is just foolish.
-Noah Greenberg
In response to Ford and GM's predicament, Walter Lapham writes:
It seems to me that the Lack of competitiveness is in part the contracts for
existing members and retired members.
Now is the perfect time to have the U.S. guarantee the health programs of GM and
Ford and Chrysler. This money would be the start of universal health care.
Congress should act and take the initiative. This would go a long way to correct
the entire auto industry.
And David W. writes:
Rather than just bail out GM, the government should just let its stock keep on
dropping. Then at some point use that 25 billion to buy controlling interest in
the company. Then it should let the top execs know that their bonus this year is
that they get to keep their jobs--cause there'll be no million dollar bonuses
for driving the company into the ground. Next GM should be told to get 4-6 lines
of hybrid vehicles ready by yesterday. Lastly... everyone in the country who
buys a new hybrid vehicle should get a big time tax rebate. But more lastly,
everyone who buys a US-made hybrid (you listening GM?) should get a bigger tax
rebate. And Finally everyone in the country driving a car 10 years or older who
trades it in for a US made hybrid should a really big tax rebate.
We need to get as many old gas guzzlers off the road as possible, and why can't
US car manufacturers make and sell them? We've left it up to the big three and
what has it gotten us? SUVs and Hummers and NO electric cars, and few hybrids...
instead of waiting for the invisible hand of the Free Market to miraculously
appear, why not just tell the newly nationalized GM to do it?
In response to the old GOP, Keith A. Dewey writes:
I agree. Wasn’t it nice back when… with a perfect Rob Roy in hand standing on
the veranda of the country club (no liberal would be a member but we accepted
invites) discussing the merits of unions or strong military, or what ever with
facts and logic? Now we have to put up with religious fanatics, ignorant beer
swilling cut off shirt trader flag tattooed buffoons. As long as they glorify
ignorance and run on religious ideology the Republican Party will always be the
minority opposition.
And in response to, "I want the GOP's members to be more like Chris Shays, Susan
Collins and Olympia Snowe than Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell,"
Robert Scardapane writes:
Chris Shays is no more (Yes, I know - that was my point -NG)! He lost in the
2008 election to Jim Himes (D-CT). Collins and Snowe managed to survive the 2008
election. There are darn few GOP moderates. While the nation has moved to the
center-left, the GOP continue to move to the right. Take a look at this graphic
compiled comparing voting for parties in 2004 versus 2008. In general, most of
the nation shifted center-left:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP/electionChange2.swf?scp=8&sq=elections%20demographic%20map&st=cse
The GOP pundits can repeat the talking point that this is a "center-right"
nation as much as they want. But, reality, shows that it is now center-left.
McConnell barely won his election. DeLay is history. Boehner is next on the hit
list if he doesn't change his ways because people in Ohio are tired of the same
old GOP political bunk.
In response to, "So the good news is: It took the Democratic Party 40 years to
regain the majority -- to win by more than 50% (Clinton only won thanks to Ross
Perot's 3rd party candidacy)," Victoria Brownworth writes:
An important correction: In 1992, Bill Clinton won 370 electoral college votes
and won 32 states plus the District of Columbia. George Bush won 168 electoral
college votes and 18 states. Ross Perot won NO STATES and NO ELECTORAL COLLEGE
VOTES. In 1996, Clinton won 379 electoral college votes, 31 states plus the
District of Columbia. Bob Dole won 159 electoral college votes and 19 states.
(Dole's home state of Kansas was the state that went for Dole instead of
Clinton.)
In 2008, Barack Obama won 365 electoral college votes, 29 states and the
District of Columbia. John McCain won 162 electoral college votes and 21 states.
Sorry, but Ross Perot in no way gave Bill Clinton the 1992 election and he still
holds the Democratic record for most states and electoral college votes won
since FDR.
Historical facts matter. I would not want to see someone later take Obama's
historic victory away from him, either.
And Madman responds:
One could certainly argue that Ross Perot's inclusion in the '92 election stole
votes from Bush(41). Some 1992 polls had the race won by George H. W. Bush when
they asked voters about a two-man race.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com
-Noah Greenberg