Okay, now send me your grandchildren

          

By Jack E. Lohman

We might just as well, they are going to be paying this bill for decades to come.

We call this the free market, or more accurately, “whatever you can get away with.” Cheat where you can, hope you get away with it, and get out before it crumbles. Or if you get caught, hope that your favored politicians look after you.

The greedy CEOs extracted the money, the taxpayers will repay it, and the CEOs will keep their booty.

How are you liking it so far?

It’s a matter of scale. Start a company and take a massive salary. If you get rich, it comes either from overpriced product or underserved customers. Normally the market forces will correct for these little transactions. A competitor will intervene and people will stop buying the overpriced product or service. Here only the bad guys get hurt.

But today’s crisis impacts even the innocent guys – their families and friends – with the CEO and executive perpetrators well protectected by political friends.

Yeah, with the free market system you may be on the receiving end some day, if you’re not already. And there’s nothing wrong with that, to an extent. That you could be taking assets from someone less fortunate is, well, their tough luck. They should have been more aggressive. Smarter. It’s a race, don’cha know? Dog eat dog.

It’s not a happy race. While I like our capitalistic, free-market system, I’d like a more regulated market. With oversight earlier rather than later, and even more so when the masses are affected.

I’m most disturbed with the politicians that were supposed to protect the public, but were in on the deal. They’ve been taking bribes from the banking and credit companies they were supposedly regulating. And then repealed key regulations with the public paying a heavy price.

The solution must be multi-pronged, two of which:

  1. First and foremost we must fund our political system with taxpayer rather than special-interest dollars. It must be obvious the heavy price we’ve paid for the corruption and conflicts of interest in our current political system. This would not have happened had we not allowed the bribing of politicians.
               
  2. Secondly, the rich are the only ones that can get us out of this mess. A tax increase on the wealthy, retroactive to January 2008, is necessary. We should create a government bond that allows them to buy in early and avoid a higher tax increase in 2009. (Saving this country from economic collapse should be worth a lot to them, so it’s time to call in some of the chips.)

Finally, we need a complete turnover of our politicians in both the state legislature and Congress. Maybe without political bribes flowing some of these guys would be pretty decent, but few of them have lifted a finger to stop the corrupt cash flow. It’s time for them to go.

Does Henry Paulson not understand “root cause?”

There is but one root cause. Campaign cash causes politicians to spend money, or it wouldn’t be given. That drives deficits out of sight, causes high and unnecessary taxes, and regulations to be lifted and markets to crash. That’s pretty sad. These jokers’ kids will pay the price too.

Have they no shame?

And please don’t tell me you don’t want to spend taxpayer dollars for political campaigns. We already are. This bailout will be 1000 times what public funding of campaigns would have cost us.

See also:

So, campaign dollars had nothing to do with this?

Political conflicts of interest take another turn

Our complex problem is really pretty basic…

Privatized government not working!

7 Responses to Okay, now send me your grandchildren

  1. Emery says:

    It’s true we are shackling future generations with our debt. Seems like the dependency created by the nanny state mentality has infected Wall St. Because now they say they are dependent on us to bail them out of the problem they created. TBH I think that the Fed and the big banks planned this. Look who is gobbling up everyone else. Chase, Citi and BOA. Goldman Sachs stands ready to move these tax payer dollars as well. You think Paulson had nothing to do with that deal? They are circling like sharks. But America is bombarded with the mass propaganda of the CFR. We have to have this bail out blah blah blah. Two weeks ago they said we were in pretty good shape? Now the sky is falling. I don’t buy it. Either they lied then or they are lying now. Why should we give more money to the same people that created this mess? I say fire the FED first. They are using a crises that they created to impose financial fascism on the marketplace and America. “We nothing to fear but the FED itself.” Liberal socialism is the reason we have spent so much money and are in debt to the tune of 10.6 soon to 11.3 trillion dollars.

  2. I agree that this may indeed be a calculated move on the part of Paulson and his cronies. I don’t think Bush is smart enough to be a part of it, but instead just got suckered into supporting it.

    I disagree that it is a Liberal Socialism problem alone. Both the R’s and D’s have been corrupted by campaign cash from both sides of the spectrum. Get the bribery out of the system and these jerks will start voting for their people rather than their pocketbook. Until they act on this there should be a complete turnover in the system.

    What IS troubling is that the Fed knew the problem was brewing nine months ago and did nothing to avert it. Thank you again, George.

  3. And let me ask just one more time: Can you imagine the consequences had Bush and the conservatives gotten their way on privatizing Social Security and we all had our retirements invested in the market? Nice thought, eh?

  4. Les Nakamoto says:

    From Les Nakamoto at Watchdog Milwaukee

    …. snip ….

    Senator Bernie Sanders I – Vermont was on the floor of the Senate today saying that he did NOT support the bailout, and specifically cited the fact that the 400 richest people in America increased their wealth by $670 BILLION during the Bush Administration’s terms in office. He repeated that so that no one would miss the point he was making.

    I’ll repeat it so that no one misses it by reading it here either.

    The top 400 richest PEOPLE in America increased their wealth by $670 BILLION during George W. Bush’s terms in office. 400 people – $670 BILLION richer.

    Remember, these are the people he calls his “base”. No poor people need apply.

    Note that Bush’s bailout is for $700 BILLION. Hmmmmm. there wouldn’t be any connection between these two numbers now would there? Somebody has to pay the final price tag in order for the Ponzi Scheme to work, remember? So, in order for someone to collect on the “value” of the investments, someone has to either purchase those investments at full value (which no one is willing to do these days), or the government has to force the taxpayers to “bail” them out. So, if we the taxpayers pay this $700 BILLION, just where is this money going? I can guarantee that none of the money is going to go to the TAXPAYERS who are bailing these guys out. But it will cost every man, woman and child about $2,200, or the average family of four almost $9,000.

    Boy, this trickle down economics of supporting the wealthy with their multi-TRILLION dollar tax cuts really worked out well for the working stiff, didn’t it?

  5. Henry Dubb says:

    Lets not forget it was those Democrats that were most enthusiastic by the bail out, and that Paulson is on “friendly terms” with Obama. Obama knew about the plan prior to McCain or Bush.

  6. Yeah, I believe that, Henry, but if we are to point fingers they must be at both political parties who took cash bribes from the credit industry. Barrons has an interesting timeline of the things that led up to it.

    There is but ONE cause of this, and that’s the bribes our congressmen took to lift the regulations of the industry. Very specifically in 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act that was repealed by the Republican congress and signed by Bill Clinton.

    Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden voted yes on repealing Glass-Stegall on November 4, 1999 (McCain also voted to repeal, and Obama wasn’t in office yet). And I’m sure that Sensenbrenner was right in there with his vote.

    Bernie Sanders has it right.

  7. I’m hearing conflicting reports. Some say “no more massive salaries for CEOs,” but others say “they can only write off the first $500K.” There’s a big difference between the two. In the latter case the massive salary can still exist, they can only write off their corporate taxes the first $500K. (And of course this would only apply to companies taking the bailout.)

%d bloggers like this: