Bring It On!

Alms for the Rich?

September 23rd, 2008 | by Omnipotent Poobah |

Fed Chairman Homer SimpsonCould it be there’s a tiny bit of backbone showing in Congress and smallest touch of gray matter showing in the electorate?

Low and behold, after eight years voters finally figured out that Republicans are as financially responsible as a drunk frat boy in a stripper joint with a no-limit gold card. For their part, Congress is finally balking at something the drunk frat boy with a no-limit gold card has proposed - the anointment of Hank Paulson as the Lord High Emperor of the Exchequer and $700 billion that could actually turn out to be either $1 trillion or $3 trillion depending on who’s doing the bean counting when all is said and done. Bipartisanship is actually blooming in Congress where they are saying in a stern, fatherly voice, “Hey you worthless drunken asshat, what the hell is with you? You get a 2.0 GPA at Yale, you flunked Econ 101 16 semesters running and now you want to stiff me with the bill?! In don’t care if you are “confident” this time will be different! Enough is enough sonny boy! That shit ain’t gonna fly no more.”

The troubles are huge and yet many Republicans still find time to chew over whether this is socialism, whether the allegedly free market should sort things out, whether this crisis is bad enough to require regulation - and Jesus Christ on a cracker - preserve platinum parachutes for the CEO’s massive failures.

There shouldn’t even be any discussion on this last count. There’s no need since it’s obvious to everyone except the CEOs, the Craphound-in-Chief, and McDeregulate. They’ve lost their right to vote on this one. Throw the CEOs out on their fat, incompetent asses and give them not one red cent. They should consider themselves lucky they aren’t being sent to prison for criminal negligence and being brain dead without a license.

You and I are bailing their stupid asses out to the tune of billions because they became history’s biggest collection of hubretics, greedheads, and shitheels. It takes a stupendous amount of chutzpah to super nova not only their own companies, but the world’s monetary system and then turn around and ask for a $41 million parting gift for their fine stewardship.

This is clearly where third-world countries, with their penchant for absolute and vengeful justice, might have a leg up on us squeamish, panty-waisted first worlders. In Saudi Arabia - the land of the terrorists and George Bush brand ass-kissing chap stick - they cut off a hand for stealing an orange. I’m guessing the penalty might be a bit harsher for CEOs caught red-handed, committing grand theft treasury. We need some punishment to fit the crime.

The Indian plan seems to hold some promise.
Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 12 Responses to “Alms for the Rich?”

  2. By manapp99 on Sep 23, 2008 | Reply

    “Low and behold, after eight years voters finally figured out that Republicans are as financially responsible as a drunk frat boy in a stripper joint with a no-limit gold card.”

    Yeah, except that the Dems have controlled congress for the last two years. What legislation did they introduce to stop this from happening?

    The answer is none.

    Who is supposed to pass legislation concerning all the regulation you are talking about. Congress. All the Dems did after lying to voters about how they were going to clean up congress and reign in Bush and the GOP is go on Sunday morning talk shows and blame everything they weren’t doing on Bush.
    The Democrat congress is the “nation of whiners” that Phil Graham should have been talking about.

    The economy was in better shape before the Dems took control of congress. But look what they did. Trash it. Let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continue with massive accounting fraud just like it did when Obama’s advisor Franklin Raines was CEO of Fannie.

    Whine and blame.

    If Obama gets elected and has a Democrat controlled congress you can bet that all we will here is how the ghost of George Bush and the GOP are keeping them from getting anything done. As long as the Dems have someone to blame they can cry alligator tears on T.V. for the “little guy” then get on their private jets and go home.

  3. By Lazy Iguana on Sep 23, 2008 | Reply

    Oh yea….two years.

    What about the Republican Revolution? Remember that? When Republicans took the house and senate in 1994? Yes, 1994.

    And once they got control of all those committees and had all that oversight power - how did the squander it?

    SEX SCANDALS!!!

    Because they all said we could just trust the free market. Leave the markets alone! They can manage themselves. Right?

    And then to compound the issue, Bush won in 2000. So now you have 6 years of a Republican Congress PLUS 6 years of a Republican Congress and Bush in the White House.

    From 2000 - 2006, not a single bill was vetoed. Not one. Bush signed them all.

    And when Democrats tried to stop some of it what happens? Republicans tried to change Senate rules so that all you need is a simple majority to stop a filibuster - not a 60% majority. I am sure they are glad that they failed to get that done now that they are the minority party.

    But I know, just talk about the last two years. The two years marked by massive Republican obstruction. Bush figured out he could veto stuff. The cracks in the economic system were there - plain to see.

    But the Republicans, including the President, stated that the fundamentals were sound. Everything was OK! Democrats were just trying to scare people. No need to do anything - the free markets would sort it out.

    I know that Republicans would rather forget all this stuff. I can’t really blame them for that. I would like to forget all this too. But I can’t.

  4. By Lisa on Sep 23, 2008 | Reply

    And after 4 years of them and Obama I bet the republicans take it all back when the voters not only figure it out but actually live it.

  5. By Lisa on Sep 23, 2008 | Reply

    And when Democrats tried to stop some of it what happens:

    Did they try to stop this one too LI”

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

  6. By Lazy Iguana on Sep 24, 2008 | Reply

    Uhhhh - you do realize that the article you linked to was written in 2003???

    And all the bill seemed to do was transfer Congressional power to the Treasury Dept - which the President gets to appoint the head of.

    At any rate, in 2003 who was in control? Which party was it? And if power was transferred to the Treasury Dept then it falls squarely on the executive branch and the clown it put in charge of the treasury.

    I do not know if this proposal passed, but whatever. The end result it that it was 2003 - when Republicans had full control.

    But what the hell. Somehow everything that happened in 2003 was the Democrats fault. Even if they had no power. No power to propose OR stop anything. It was still their fault. Why, if the Republicans just had MORE power than none of this would have happened! Right?

    As for the next President - whoever it is will inherit a mess. If it is Obama who wins then Republicans will expect all the mess created to just vanish overnight. Right? That is how it works.

    And if it is McCain, then what he has on his desk on day 1 is all the fault of the party barely in control of the Congress for only 2 of the past 14 years - including 6 long years of one party rule where nothing was vetoed.

    Did I get that about right?

    And do you think people are really that stupid?

  7. By Liberal Jarhead on Sep 24, 2008 | Reply

    I think, and hope, that people are finally getting disgusted enough to insist on the system being changed so that people who cause events like this are regulated and held accountable.

    Congress and the executive have been moving in the opposite direction since Reagan, because the campaigns that put them in office were financed by the people who have carried out this hostile takeover and prolonged corporate raid on the American economy and middle class.

    But it seems as if the voters, at least those who aren’t either in the 2% that are the beneficiaries of this or so stupid they will believe anything Rupert Murdoch uses Fox to tell them, may finally be mad enough to pay attention and vote for justice strongly enough to override the power of the corporate money.

    And at this point, the only two reasons for someone to defend the Bush administration or the policies of the Republican party over the last 28 years are either that they are in that 2% - which I seriously doubt is the case with anyone participating in this blog - or that they really are that stupid.

    And blind loyalty by people who aren’t rich, to a party that keeps cornholing them along with the rest of us and laughing at them behind their back as useful idiots, because the other party is less willing to pander to their mental laziness and prejudices, is just that, blind. And really, really, stupid. As stupid as calling themselves “dittoheads” implies; so dumb and lazy they’re willing to go along with people who say “bend over, we’ll drive!” because they have no critical thinking skills and they’re afraid actually thinking will make their heads hurt too much.

    If the people running for office think this kind of crap will cost them the offices, power, and perks they love, they’ll change it, no matter how big the bribes they’re offered.

    That day is coming - the only question now is how bad things will have to be to get enough Americans to stand up and force the change. And the longer the back pressure builds, the bigger the convulsion will be when it happens.

    The Great Depression led to the Republican party being completely discredited, twenty years of Democratic control of the White House and several decades of a Democratic majority in the Congress, and the New Deal.

    It took the Republicans coming up with a candidate who was one of the most admired Americans around, Dwight Eisenhower, for that party to finally win a presidential election again; but that’s not likely to happen this time around, because just about all the people who actually serve in the military these days and go into politics somehow end up as Democrats. Maybe because an ethos of actual patriotism, and having the guts to put your butt on the line instead of just talking trash, is incompatible with today’s Republican party. And no, McCain no longer counts as an actual patriot, because although he served bravely in Vietnam, he sold his soul and his ass to big business long ago as a senator. Benedict Arnold started out as an American hero, but he lost the right to call himself that too… he sold out to the Brits, who were the greatest danger to the United States then, and McCain has sold out to multinational big business and now the neocons and fundies, who are today’s biggest threats to the United States.

  8. By christopher Radulich on Sep 24, 2008 | Reply

    it’s hard to determine who has a greater grasp of reality, crack head or republicans. Both never except any responsiblity for their actions.

  9. By Lisa on Sep 24, 2008 | Reply

    Eight it’s all the republicans fault as usual the democrats sit back and get to enjoy their lack of blame:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

  10. By Lisa on Sep 24, 2008 | Reply

    Eight- I meant “Right”

  11. By Lisa on Sep 24, 2008 | Reply

    So it’s Bush’s fault because he was in charge but when Clinton signed the “Grand” Bill. If we had a fair and balanced media the American Publi would know this:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103×350930

  12. By manapp99 on Sep 24, 2008 | Reply

    As the truth slowly makes it’s way to the top the reason we are in this financial mess was really started by Democrats going back to Jimmy Carter:

    http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307061229501695

    “t was then, for the best and purest of reasons, that well-meaning Democratic members of Congress brought the Community Reinvestment Act into being.

    The main idea, as the late Democratic Sen. William Proxmire said on the Senate floor in 1977, was “to eliminate the practice of redlining by lending institutions.”

    The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was the beginning of the government forcing private lending companies to loan to high risk borrowers.

    It was not the lack of government regulations that caused this, it was too much regulation. Just as good conservative Republicans have been saying for decades.

    More from the article….

    “unfortunately, this well-intended law eventually led to a housing boom based on shoddy loan practices, a subsequent bust, and the financial mess we are in today.

    Initially, the CRA was supposed to not just lend to poor areas, but to do so “consistent with safe and sound lending practices.” That latter key proviso was ignored as CRA was implemented.

    As IBD has already shown, the CRA forced banks and savings institutions — then, far more heavily regulated than today — to make loans to poor, often uncreditworthy minority borrowers.

    Banks were required to keep extensive records of their minority lending practices. Those that didn’t pass muster could be denied the right to expand their branches, merge with other banks, or boost lending in new markets.”

  13. By Chris Radulich on Sep 24, 2008 | Reply

    Once again red lining has nothing to due with this debacle. It was started by the Roosevelt administration and it was blatant discrimination. If the saw 1 black or hispanic on a block they would red line the whole district. So unless you agree with the statement - Blacks or Hispanics are dumb people who can’t be trusted to lend money too-, the practice had to go.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel