Want our money? Then we OWN YOU.

I'm sick and tired of banks begging at our doors. The same banks that would happily foreclose on us, without a thought. The same banks that came begging to the government for a bailout because they "just couldn't make it" after all of their irresponsible but lucrative business ventures; then threw another lavish, 'we deserve the best' party for themselves.

As though our money was their birthright. Partying on our thin dime... while people are being tossed out of their homes. Partying on our thin dime after repeated bailouts and promises that they won't use corporate jets, etc., etc., etc., (lie after lie -- and undoubtedly laughing behind closed doors as they get richer and We The People go bust.)

This must stop. This has to stop.

Mr. Obama, please: the next time the banks come asking for cash, they sign over the stock and We own them. They report to us, the stockholders; and the party finally ends.

Federal workers all took a pay freeze... right? The only way to make these greedy bastards toe the line is to take them over and freeze their pay.

And fire their loser CEOs. As the GOP is so fond of saying... there is no free lunch.

From Maureen Dowd courtesy of the New York Times (OP-ED:)

I Ponied Up for Sheryl Crow?
By MAUREEN DOWD

LOS ANGELES

Talk about being teed off.

The economy is croaking and bankers are still partying at a golf tournament here on our dime.

It’s a good argument for nationalization, or better yet, internationalization. Outsource the jobs of these perfidious, oblivious bank executives to Bangalore; Bollywood bashes have to cost less than Hollywood ones.

The entertainment Web site TMZ broke the story Tuesday that Northern Trust of Chicago, which got $1.5 billion in bailout money and then laid off 450 workers, flew hundreds of clients and employees to Los Angeles last week and treated them to four days of posh hotel rooms, salmon and filet mignon dinners, music concerts, a PGA golf tournament at the Riviera Country Club with Mercedes shuttle rides and Tiffany swag bags.

“A rep from the PGA told us Northern Trust wrote one big, fat check in order to sponsor the event,” TMZ reported.

Northern No Trust had a lavish dinner at the Ritz Carlton on Wednesday with a concert by Chicago (at a $100,000 fee); rented a private hangar at the Santa Monica Airport on Thursday for another big dinner with a gig by Earth, Wind & Fire, and closed down the House of Blues on Sunset Strip on Saturday (at a cost of $50,000) for a dinner and serenade by Sheryl Crow.

Read the rest (if you can do it without smashing your monitor...)

Brother can you spare some credit?

Out of our taxes, into their pockets... and now injury added to insult. In a brilliant effort to increase consumer spending, the freshly bailed-out financial institutions (the banks and credit companies) have decided to slash the lines of credit that in many cases enable people in these hard times to buy groceries.

As for the 'Christmas rush' on which many businesses depend, it will likely be a dismal year (I know we aren't buying a damn thing. We're hording.) Other than the stampede that killed a Walmart worker last Friday -- the darkest of Black Fridays -- this holiday shopping season will be lean. Honestly: who has money for anything but the necessities? Its shaping up into a cold winter. If I bought anything right now it would be a wood-burning stove.

But sure Henry Paulson -- you're doin a heckuva job. The economy will just bounce right back now that your rich friends can once again afford those posh, luxury retreats.

(Reuters) - The U.S. credit-card industry may pull back well over $2 trillion of lines over the next 18 months due to risk aversion and regulatory changes, leading to sharp declines in consumer spending, prominent banking analyst Meredith Whitney said.

The credit card is the second key source of consumer liquidity, the first being jobs, the Oppenheimer & Co analyst noted.

"In other words, we expect available consumer liquidity in the form of credit-card lines to decline by 45 percent."

Bank of America Corp (BAC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Citigroup Inc (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) represent over half of the estimated U.S. card outstandings as of September 30, and each company has discussed reducing card exposure or slowing growth, Whitney said.

Closing millions of accounts, cutting credit lines and raising interest rates are just some of the moves credit card issuers are using to try to inoculate themselves from a tsunami of expected consumer defaults.

I have an idea, Mr. Paulson. Of course you won't like it; and your buddies will hate it... by why don't you break these behemoths up into smaller, more manageable entities so as to pry their hands off of our collective throats? No banking or business entity should be so large, with so much power that it threatens our entire economy let alone the world's economy. Lesson learned. Of course the wealthy elite stick together, so my guess is that the lesson learned won't be enacted in any kind of meaningful way.

Banking analyst Meredith Whitney seems to be on the same page. Early on in the story:

Mortgages and credit cards are now dominated by five players who are all pulling back liquidity, making reductions in consumer liquidity seem unavoidable, she said.

Further down... another observation:

"In a country that offers hundreds of cereal and soda pop choices, the banking industry has become one that offers very few choices," Whitney wrote in a note dated November 30.

She also said credit lines to consumers through home equity and credit cards had been cut back from the second-quarter levels.

"Pulling credit when job losses are increasing by over 50 percent year-over-year in most key states is a dangerous and unprecedented combination, in our view," the analyst said.

I read the news today - oh boy (ongoing)

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 -- 8:45 AM ET
-----

Bush Calls Plan to Invest $250 Billion in Banks 'Essential'

President Bush, speaking from the Rose Garden Tuesday before the markets opened in New York, called the government plan to invest up to $250 billion in banks essential to help assure stability in the financial system. The president described the government's new proposal, which includes a guarantee on new debt issued by banks and other measures, as "unprecedented and aggressive."

Excuse me... I'd like to ask a question, if I may. Is this $250 billion of which you speak part of the $750+ billion we already gave (had taken from us;) or is this to be an additional $250 bailout added on to the first?

And while you're bailing out Wall Street CEOs and bankers, I can't help but notice that your party doesn't want any part in developing a modest ($300 billion) bailout plan for us. Yes - a teeny-tiny $300 billion slice (of that trillion pie that we're paying for already) that would actually help the citizens who are footing this 'unprecedented and aggressive' Wall Street/Banker bailout.

What - not even a crumb for us?

A House Republican aide quickly dismissed a $300 billion stimulus package as "even more irresponsible and ridiculous" than the smaller packages Democrats have previously discussed. Republicans are particularly resistant to spending federal money on "a huge public works plan" or "bailing out states who spent a lot more money than they should have," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said Sunday on ABC News's "This Week."

In a letter yesterday to Pelosi, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) laid out an alternative plan for stimulating the economy that includes cutting taxes on corporations and capital gains, as well as some new provisions that Democrats said could form the basis of a compromise. Boehner's tone, however, was far from conciliatory.

"Nothing currently being discussed by the Majority as 'stimulus' will stabilize the economy long-term," Boehner wrote. "Our constituents are not looking at the mess in Washington or Wall Street and asking the federal government to take care of other governments. They are not asking for . . . pork-barrel spending masquerading as 'stimulus.'"

The White House had threatened to veto previous Democratic stimulus packages, though the rhetoric has softened as the economy has worsened. In recent days, White House officials have declined to comment directly on the proposals, noting that a package could not be approved until lawmakers return to Washington Nov. 17.

Oh yes - cut corporate taxes again. That will certainly help the people who are losing their jobs and homes. I'm surprised American corporations are still paying taxes; I thought the GOP let them off the hook years ago.

Besides, most corporations have moved offshore. We don't work for them. They wanted cheap labor, freedom from providing employee health care, freedom from unions and zero government oversight - freedom from responsibility to anyone but their shareholders. And in the wake of their mass defection, many American citizens are now unemployed.

How are we expected to buy these Walmart 'goods' now flooding in from China - the lead-filled toys and poisoned food - if we don't have wages or homes in which to keep them?

At least bow to simple logic, if not to patriotism and compassion.

Oh and please remind us once again, because we've forgotten: why would we vote Republican in this election? Are you going solely for the masochist vote this time?

Kucinich: Taxation without Representation

Apparently I am not the only voter now disenfranchised by Obama after this epic 'giveaway' to Wall Street. I am also not the only one who has noticed that the Democrats are now marching in closer lockstep to Bush than many Republicans. We live in interesting times.

In an excellent essay, Chris Hedges takes Obama to task for pushing the bailout bill and offering no alternatives - after promoting himself as a candidate who will not bow to lobbyist demands. Given the choices - Obama or McCain - many of us feel we will have to choose the lesser risk (Obama,) but he has greatly hurt his credibility with this promotion of bankers over home owners.

That said, the best quotes in this essay were from Kucinich:

"This was the largest single act of class warfare in the modern history of this country," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who led the fight in the House against the bailout, told me by phone from Cleveland. "It is a direct attack on the American people's ability to be able to stabilize their homes and their neighborhoods. This single vote will define the careers of everyone. We are back to taxation without representation, to markets that are openly rigged."

"We buried the New Deal," he said of the vote. "Instead of Democrats going back to classic New Deal economics where we prime the pump of the economy and start money circulating among the population through saving homes, creating jobs and building a new infrastructure, our leaders chose to accelerate the wealth of the nation upwards. They did so in a way that was destructive of free-market principles. They ripped away all the familiar moorings. We are in an uncharted sea where the traditional roles of the political parties are being switched. The Democrats have unfortunately become so enamored and beholden to Wall Street that we are not functioning to defend the economic interest of the broad base of the American people. It was up to the Republicans to protect not just a so-called free market but the American taxpayer and attempt to block this. This is an outrage. This was democracy's Black Friday."

In his phone interview with Hedges, Kucinich went on to say:

"Some of the most powerful speeches against this were given by members of the Republican Party who are on the political right," Kucinich said. "They did a superb job in poking holes in the underlying assumptions of the bailout. They say what they believe. Give me somebody who says what they believe and I can figure out how to get them to a new place. When people say one thing and do another it is very hard to be able to move a debate."

"We had two take-it-or-leave-it propositions and the second one was worse than the first," Kucinich said, referring to the plan that came loaded with pages of tax cuts. "Tax cuts are antithetical to a bailout. We never solved the problem. There were never any hearings on the bill. This premise, that we could prop up the stock market with a $700-billion investment and create some liquidity, was flawed. The problem is that banks do not want to loan to each other. It is not a liquidity problem. Banks are afraid they are going to collapse in short selling. There is a war going on between security firms and banks. Banks are under assault. They are not loaning. The dynamic is driven by the Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Fed."

"We face a perfect financial storm," Kucinich warned. "The elements are the deficit spending for the war of 3 to 4 trillion dollars, the trillion and more tax cuts, the war itself and the lack of serious investment in the country. We are being hollowed out. We are going to see more unemployment and more people losing their homes. With $700 billion we could have made a real investment in the country, in jobs, in infrastructure and in homes. Instead, we got robbed."

Yes, definitely.

And this obviously has done nothing to calm the growing economic storm. We may as well all step out of our houses (those of us who still have houses,) and toss our life savings into the wind, as to throw $700 billion of borrowed money at Wall Street hoping that the hurricane will move back out to sea.

This bill was all about bailing out corporate donors. You know it. I know it. Many in congress know it. And yet so many voted for it anyway. Black Friday indeed.

It is our job as voters to pay attention to which members fought it - fought for us - and to vote for them. The rest should be tossed out of government forever. I'm sure their Wall Street buddies will be happy to take them in.

As for Obama... he is obviously less economically clueless than McCain. But I have lost my faith that he is the solution, the leader we need in this time of economic calamity. He has shown that he is no Roosevelt; he has shown that he doesn't vote the talk of helping the average American.

Obama has quite a bit of answering to do for his part in epic fleecing of the American people. If elected president, I can only assume that one day he will realize the consequences of his actions. Hopefully he will one day learn to be a real Democrat, or at least a real leader of the people.

Lou Dobbs: Earmarks with bailout

Pin the tale on the donkey... and the elephant

These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.

- Abraham Lincoln

While the media trumpets the passing of this 'historic legislation -- and the taxpaying public, their children, and their grandchildren are left to pay the bill -- here is a little background that McClatchy was kind enough to print:

Lax oversight? Maybe $64 million for D.C. pols explains it

The Wall Street financiers and firms whose problems have prompted a $700 billion federal bailout are no strangers to Capitol Hill or to politics.

Since 2001, eight of the most troubled firms have donated $64.2 million to congressional candidates, presidential candidates and the Republican and Democratic parties, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The donors include investment bankers Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, insurer American International Group and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since March, with the exception of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, all of these companies have been bailed out by the government, sold to other companies at deeply discounted prices or simply failed.

Both political parties have become beholden to Wall Street.

Legislators failed in several instances to conduct oversight hearings or to raise concerns as the Bush administration adopted rules that fed the mortgage frenzy and set Wall Street on the route to disaster.

For instance, in 2004 when the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a major rule change that freed investment banks to plunge tens of billions of dollars in borrowed money into subprime mortgages and other risky plays, congressional banking committees held no oversight hearings.

Congressional inaction also allowed mortgage agents to earn high fees for peddling loans to unqualified homebuyers and prevented states from toughening regulations on predatory lending practices.

Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee who ran unsuccessfully for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, has received nearly $1.3 million from employees of the eight troubled firms since 2001.

Dodd didn't respond to repeated requests for comment. His office said he's unaffected by campaign contributions and stressed that he was the first to "sound the alarm about the subprime crisis," shortly after assuming the chairmanship in 2007.

In the House of Representatives, Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, has collected about $78,000. Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has taken the least cash of the four House and Senate banking chairmen of recent years.

He said that's probably because he "fought like hell'' against administration limits on state predatory lending laws, but had limited influence until Democrats won the House majority and he became chairman in 2007. He said he'd just become the panel's ranking Democrat in 2004 when the SEC rule was adopted, and "I don't remember that issue coming before us."

Former Ohio Rep. Michael Oxley, who was the Republican chairman of the financial services committee in 2004, when the SEC rule was adopted, received more than $260,000 from the eight banks before he left Congress in 2007. Oxley last year was named vice chairman of the tech-heavy Nasdaq stock exchange. He couldn't be reached for comment.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the Alabama Republican who was the banking committee chairman when the SEC rule was adopted, received more than $152,000 in donations. Jonathan Graffeo, a spokesman for Shelby, said that campaign donations "are not a factor in Sen. Shelby's decision-making."

Shelby said that Democrats blocked his attempts to rein in the roles of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and his push for a closer review of the SEC's regulation of investment banks. He said the SEC rule left a staff of fewer than 20 overseeing trillions of dollars in assets.

The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, have received a combined total of $3.1 million. A small portion went to their Senate campaigns.

Indeed, it's impossible to say what, if anything, Wall Street bought with its $64 million. Politicians and political parties take money from a wide variety of sources, many of them with competing interests and opinions, but experts interviewed by McClatchy said that inaction by the Congress helped set the stage for the current crisis.

Some state regulators, recognizing early signs of trouble in housing markets, sought help from Congress when the Bush administration adopted rules barring states from enforcing tough laws targeting predatory lending — the practices that were enabling unqualified applicants to obtain subprime mortgages.

With Wall Street serving a key role in buying, bundling and reselling subprime mortgages, state officials couldn't get Congress to intervene, said John Ryan, the executive vice president of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors.

Read the rest...

'Campaign donations' are not a factor in decision-making... please. I see that line over and over in the above story. What a joke. I'm sure the banks always make donations out of kindness and respect, with no strings attached. Perhaps they simply like you guys, shucks.

We've been sold out.

Even the Wall Street Journal - and you have to admit the irony there - ran with the following story:

Bank Lobbyists Regained Clout After Vote in House

WASHINGTON -- After defeat of the financial rescue bill in the House this week, Washington sought advice and ideas from lobbyists of the same industries blamed for creating the mess.

In White House meetings and phone calls Thursday, President George W. Bush and top advisers pleaded with industry groups to help save the $700 billion financial bailout plan, following its defeat Monday in the House of Representatives.

Members of Congress also opened their doors after largely shutting out industry lobbyists earlier.

Read the rest...

I have nothing else to say. Sadly, this was predictable. So is the coming crash of the economy and subsequent collapse of the dollar.

"B Day" in the House of Representatives

Question of the day... will our allies in the House cave to pressure from the Senate 'Millionaire's Club,' or will they take the time to do this right?

Our future depends on this answer, and we don't have long to wait.

I'm sure most of us weren't terribly surprised when the Senate voted 74-25 vote to bail out Wall Street with only a few superficial changes (supposedly to pacify angry American taxpayers.) The Senate is stuffed with millionaires; most of them painfully out of touch with the struggles of mainstream America.

It frightens me to see that both of our presidential candidates voted in favor. This leads me to believe that nothing will really change after this election - not unless we get this right... and get it right before the election. This is probably our only chance to participate in our government, which is our right as American citizens. Somewhere out there, our forefathers are watching us.

Today the bailout mess falls back on the House of Representatives, where we still have some influence (all members of the House are up for re-election in November.)

From all accounts, corporate lobbyists are working around the clock to switch 13 votes from 'No' to 'Yes.' They have apparently been successful in changing 7: Jim Ramstad (R-MN), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Zach Wamp (R-TN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and John Lewis (D-GA) will probably now vote in favor of this bill.

Other possible switches include Pat Tiberi (R-OH), Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), John Yarmouth (D-KY), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Lee Terry (R-NE), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). I don't see any changes from my representatives in Indiana; and I'm proud of them for demanding other options.

While some representatives are switching their vote and will now favor the Senate bill, still others may actually change their vote from Yes to No; including Ed Markey (D-MA), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and Spencer Bachus (R-AL).

Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, called Paulson's plan "crazy" and "lunacy" with potentially "awful" consequences for the world's largest economy. Strong words... from someone who should know. Many of our nation's best economists agree with O'Neill.

Paulson's strongest supporters admit that it will not raise stock prices or boost the economy as we sink further into a recession. Why should we rush through a bailout plan - one that everyone agrees will be ineffective - that gives $700 - $850 billion of our tax dollars to Wall Street?

I found it interesting that Joe Lieberman mentioned on FOX that this government bailout will be "good for John McCain." No mention of what is best for America; best for generations of American citizens who will inherit this debt. But then again... we're talking about Joe Lieberman, so this can't really come as much of a shock.

Our entire financial future - as a nation - is hanging in the balance. Congress should stay in session for as long as necessary to craft a better and cheaper plan; because there are definitely other options. One alternative, called the 'No Bailouts Plan' has already been proposed by Pete DeFazio (D-OR). The DeFazio bill is designed to fix the banking system by providing insolvency relief instead of a bailout.

Another bill currently in the works by Rep. David Scott and Rep. Doggett - with the aid of economist James K. Galbraith - plans to help ordinary people by creating a modern version of the Home Owner's Loan Corporation (HOLC). This will address the mortgage crisis on Mainstreet by taking over mortgages and keeping people in their homes with reasonable serviceable mortgages.

Taking pieces from each of these bills and crafting something that works for all of America is the job facing the House today.

They can fold their tent and walk away, leaving this disastrous government bailout intact; or they can craft something much better. Each of these alternative bills fails to address all of the issues facing our economy. Patched together by a determined and responsible congress, they could form the foundation of a sound and humane solution to financial and economic meltdown facing our entire economy -- not simply Wall Street.

Congress undoubtedly wants to go home so Friday; passing the existing Senate plan would be the easy way out. It is up to us to demand otherwise and stop this $850 billion disaster in its tracks.

Finally, an economist

This posted on Democracy Now!:

Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz: Bail Out Wall Street Now, Change Terms Later

The Senate has endorsed a revised version of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan. The legislation was easily approved last night on a 74-to-25 vote with a majority of Democrats and Republicans voting in favor—among them, presidential nominees Barack Obama and John McCain. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the measure, although flawed, should be supported now and revisited after the November elections.

Since no one is listening to us (now) anyway... OK.

But Mr Stiglitz... you realize this will never be revisited - not even a chance - unless Obama is elected.

McCain - always against regulation of any kind - has gone totally over to the Neocon.

So if this passes congress... we are staking the entire future of our dollar and the economic wellbeing of generations of Americans on the outcome of one election.

Just sayin.

Bail out Mainstreet, not Wall Street

"Cash for Trash" protests break out all over U.S.

From IPS International News:

ECONOMY-US: National Protests Erupt Over Bailout Plan

Haider Rizvi

NEW YORK, Sep 25 (IPS) - The George W. Bush administration's plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue giant Wall Street firms from their current financial meltdown has unleashed a spontaneous wave of protests across the United States.

"Cash for trash," shouted activists who gathered near Wall Street to express their outrage at Bush's proposal to buy bad debts of financial institutions at the cost of 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Protesters said they want the Congress to protect millions of U.S. citizens who are on the verge of losing their homes due to bad lending practices of creditors instead of doling out public money to big investment firms responsible for ruining the economy.

"People are up in arms about this," Matt Holland of the TrueMajority.org, an advocacy group comprising 700,000 members that played a major role in organising the protests, told IPS. "Our members are livid. They're hitting the streets."

According to the group, thousands of people in more than 190 cities and towns across the country took part in demonstrations against the corporate bailout bill proposed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last Friday.

The four-page draft bill, which is currently under discussion on Capitol Hill, did not initially require any legal and financial measures to protect homeowners from possible foreclosures, nor did it put any limits on the salaries of the corporate executives -- although legislators say that has since been amended.

On Thursday, Democratic and Republican lawmakers declared they were close to reaching a deal on a modified version of the bill, but still there was no indication if it would pass the Senate and the House.

"While many are focused on providing relief to the Wall Street, millions of homeowners are at risk of being left behind," said Janet Murgula, president of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights group.

To Murgula, "it is irresponsible public policy to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for a Wall Street rescue package while simultaneously denying them a sustainable response to the devastation the rising foreclosures rate is having throughout the country."

Independent presidential candidate and populist consumer advocate Ralph Nader agrees.

"The public outrage out there is really enormous," he said in an interview with the left-wing television programme Democracy Now!, calling the Bush proposal "a double standard between the guys at the top and the people who are going to have to pay the bills."

Read more...

Fear, then Loathing of Wall Street

Allison Linn, MSNBC.com:

"As Americans digest a dizzying series of events that has left Wall Street shaken to its core, the mood on Main Street is shifting from fear to loathing. They are angry that government regulators did not do enough to prevent this - and protect them - in the first place. They are upset the government is proposing billions of dollars in bailouts for Wall Street, even as many regular Americans are struggling to hang onto their homes and pay their bills."

Yes ma'am. We are.

And imagine... there are only 41 days, eleven hours and 6 minutes - or less - until we vote. Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer scorned.