“Setting the Crown for a Corporate State”: The Monopolization of Democracy by Corporations

[Time for change]

“I fear what they're doing… is setting the crown for a corporate state…. And by that I mean a rather small but very powerful circle of financial institutions… also some industrial corporations… Too big to fail… protected by (government)… The leading banks and corporations… will have the means to monopolize democracy.” – William Greider, discussing the Geithner plan to address our economic crisis, in an interview with Bill Moyers, March 27, 2009.

It’s now been a little over a year since Congress agreed to bailout our banks, despite substantial opposition from the American people. In March 2009 our new Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, revealed plans to continue the bank bailout, which largely went into effect shortly afterwards. So how has that gone?

That depends upon whom you ask. If you listen to the corporate media you’d think everything is just fine. Typical of their opinions on this is a TV talking head that I recently heard bubbling over with praise for our economy. She mainly talked about the recovery of the stock market, concluding that this has resulted in large gains for American “taxpayers”. Taxpayers? She didn’t voice the slightest awareness that there is not a one to one correspondence between investors and taxpayers.

Actually, the banks have done quite well. But what about the rest of us?


The effects on ordinary Americans

Home foreclosures
There were 106,007 home foreclosures during the second quarter of 2009 – up 17% from the first quarter of the year. When Geithner was asked why efforts to help home owners haven’t helped more of them, he responded that:

They are trying to do everything to expand mortgage help, but the problem defies a quick fix. "It is very unlikely that we will say that the housing market has got to the place in the next few months where it no longer needs help."

Well, maybe that’s because our government gave vast amounts of money to failing banks instead of giving it to those who need it most. And maybe it’s also because we have a plan where “Lenders are paid to lower a borrower's monthly payments”. Maybe the plan would have worked better if the money was given to the borrowers instead of the lenders.

Unemployment
The official unemployment rate for September 2009 showed unemployment in the United States reaching 9.8%. However, it is widely accepted that the actual unemployment rate is far higher than that, when people who have given up looking for work are taken into account, or when under-employed persons are taken into account.

This graph puts the official unemployment rate into historical perspective: It rose during the Bush 41 administration, to reach as high as 8.2% in early 1993 – an important reason why Bush lost the 1992 presidential election. When Bill Clinton took over the presidency in January 1993, the unemployment rate was at 8.0%. It then consistently declined during the Clinton administration, reaching 3.7% by December 2000. It then rose, declined, and then rose again during the George W. Bush administration, reaching 8.5% by January 2008. The current official unemployment rate of 9.5% represents a modern-time high.

Jared Bernstein, Vice President Biden’s Economic Policy Advisor, in his book “Crunch – Why Do I Feel So Squeezed”, discusses the apparent paradox of a financial situation where so many Americans are doing so poorly in the presence of healthy “economic indicators”. The following excerpt applies to the “jobless recovery” of the Bush/Cheney administration, but the same principle applies to any “jobless recovery”:

Over the course of this highly touted economic expansion, poverty is up, working families’ real incomes are down…. By 2007, 44% said they lacked the money they needed “to make ends meet”…

If you feel squeezed, chances are it’s because you are squeezed. Most of the indicators that matter most to us in our everyday lives… are coming in at stress inducing levels, but GDP… keeps on truckin’. Something’s wrong, something fundamental…

The name of the problem is economic inequality… It’s a sign that something important is broken: the set of economic mechanisms and forces that used to broadly and fairly distribute the benefits of growth… unions, minimum wages… full employment… quality jobs, safety nets, and social

Economic inequality
Speaking of economic inequality, Paul Krugman recently commented on the most recent income inequality statistics in the United States, saying that they “didn’t get much attention but they’re truly amazing”. The important points to observe in the graph that is contained in the link are:

Income inequality rose precipitously during the 1920s under three Republican presidents, reaching a high just prior to the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which led to the Great Depression. Numerous measures put in place during FDR’s New Deal led to declining income inequality, which reached record lows late in his presidency and remained at record lows for four decades, until they began to rise again shortly after Ronald Reagan became president. With the corporate friendly, deregulation policies of the “Reagan Revolution”, income inequality began a steady rise, interrupted by a decline during the late years of the Clinton administration, and then a precipitous rise during the George W. Bush administration, reaching an all-time high for 2007, preceding our current economic recession (or depression). With current levels of unemployment, it seems extremely unlikely that the situation has reversed since 2007. The lesson that many economists take away from this is:

Massive corporate deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy ==> severe income inequality ==> financial collapse.


In summary, our current financial situation looks pretty good from the standpoint of corporate CEOs, but dismal for ordinary Americans.


What was the magnitude of our bank bailout?

One of the biggest problems with our bailout of the banks is the lack of transparency of the whole process. According to the Special Inspector General for the TARP program:

TARP largely remains a program in which taxpayers are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money and will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested.

But that’s not the worst of it. According to Nomi Prins and Christopher Hayes, writing in The Nation:

TARP was but a small fraction (roughly 4 percent) of the full $17.5 trillion (No, that’s not a typo) bailout and subsidization of the financial sector. The details of this total bailout are complicated, but the basic mechanisms aren’t beyond the average citizen’s grasp. We’re going to walk you through it.

Actually, I am not going to walk you through it, because it is too complex for me to understand (You can look it up at the link). But I’ll give you the bottom line of their article:

Given the banks’ newfound publicly sponsored financial health, Washington has little incentive to rock the boat by proposing serious reforms….

Lack of accountability seems to be something of a theme. Despite conducting themselves recklessly, compulsively, almost sociopathically, (the banks) got a lot of money to help maintain their lifestyle and assets. But what happens when they take all that money and double down on the wrong bet? Will they be back for another helping? Why wouldn’t they be? Given everything our government has said and done so far, and the meager reform ideas on the table, it’s very likely there will be another bad bet coming from the entire industry – and with it, the vaporizing of much of the assistance doled out to avoid that very occurrence.

We were warned by non-corporatist economists

As the Obama administration was considering putting the Geithner plan into effect – which was largely a continuation of the Bush administration plan – several eminent non-corporate economists warned them and us of the consequences. They used different words, but the basic message was quite similar: a reverse Robin Hood scheme, conducted behind closed doors:

Paul Krugman
This is what Paul Krugman had to say about Geithner’s bank bailout plan:

The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt… This isn't really about letting markets work. It's just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

In other words, this is a gift from the American taxpayers to the banks.

Krugman said that Geithner’s plan is very similar to Hank Paulson’s abandoned "cash for trash" plan, and that it won’t work. Well, that makes sense to me. How could the economic condition of the average American be improved by handing over trillions of dollars to banks? And worse yet, Krugman added:

If this plan fails – as it almost surely will – it's unlikely that he'll (Obama) be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place.

Joseph Stiglitz
What Joseph Stiglitz had to say about the Geithner bailout plan was very similar to what Krugman said. He uses different words than Krugman, but the basic principle is the same:

The U.S. government plan to rid banks of toxic assets will rob American taxpayers by exposing them to too much risk and is unlikely to work as long as the economy remains weak…. The U.S. government is basically using the taxpayer to guarantee against downside risk on the value of these assets, while giving the upside, or potential profits, to private investors… Quite frankly, this amounts to robbery of the American people. I don't think it's going to work…

James Galbraith
James Galbraith, the son of John Kenneth Galbraith didn’t mince words in castigating Geithner’s plan:

The plan is yet another massive, ineffective gift to banks and Wall Street. Taxpayers, of course, will take the hit… The banks don't want to take their share of those losses because doing so will wipe them out. So they, and Geithner, are doing everything they can to pawn the losses off on the taxpayer…. In Geithner's plan, this debt won't disappear. It will just be passed from banks to taxpayers, where it will sit until the government finally admits that a major portion of it will never be paid back.

Robert Reich
Robert Reich, the Clinton administration’s first Secretary of Labor, also saw much similarity in the Geithner and Paulson plans (though he does say that Geithner’s plan is better). He explained how, through the actions of the Federal Reserve, Geithner’s plan could stick it to the American taxpayer for trillions:

In truth, the plan assumes trillions more from the Fed, based on the Fed's seemingly infinite capacity to backstop almost anyone putting up almost any collateral. The idea is to lure private investors into buying up the banks' toxic assets, by having the Fed limit their downside risks. If private investors pay too much, the Fed picks up the tab….

If the trillions of dollars the Fed has already committed and the trillions more it's about to commit can't be recouped, the federal debt explodes and you and I and other taxpayers are left holding the bag….

Reich noted the very poor track record of Wall Street thus far, and complained about the lack of transparency in Geithner’s plan:

The Fed is subject to almost no political oversight… They hide much of the true costs and risks to taxpayers of repairing the banking system. Those risks and costs should be put on the people who made risky bets on the banks in the first place – namely bank shareholders and creditors. Shareholders of the most troubled banks should be wiped out entirely. Bank creditors – except depositors – should take major hits. And top executives who were responsible should be canned. But Geithner and Bernanke don't want to take these steps… They think it's safer to put the costs and risks on taxpayers – especially in ways they can't see.

Dean Baker
Dean Baker said this about the Geithner plan:

Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner's latest bank bailout plan is another Rube Goldberg contraption intended to funnel taxpayer dollars to bankrupt banks, without being overly transparent about the process. The main mechanism is a government guarantee that would allow investors to buy junk with a 12-to-1 leverage ratio, where they only risk the downside on their own investment, not the borrowed money.

William Greider warns that we’re on the path to a corporate state

William Greider is a political journalist who has warned us many times in the past about the dire consequences of government becoming too cozy with the corporatocracy:

This will sound extreme to some people, but I came to it reluctantly. I fear what they're doing… in their design is setting the crown for a corporate state…. And by that I mean a rather small but very powerful circle of financial institutions the old Wall Street banks, famous names. But also some industrial corporations… Too big to fail. Yes, watched closely by the Federal Reserve and others in government, but also protected by them… The leading banks and corporations are sort of at the trough, ahead of everybody else in Washington, they will have the means to monopolize democracy. And I mean that literally. Some of my friends would say, hey, that already happened…. The corporate state is here…. The fact is, if the Congress goes down the road I see them going down, they will institutionalize the corporate state in a way that will be severely damaging to any possibility of restoring democracy.

In a recent article on the subject, Greider emphasized our dysfunctional political system – especially the disproportionate role of money in politics – as a major cause of our current crisis, as well as our movement towards a corporate state. He said:

Surely the political system itself is a root cause of the financial crisis. The swollen influence of financial interests pushed Congress and presidents to repeal regulation and look the other way as reckless excesses developed….

Deepening suspicions over our current state of affairs

Greider sees hope in the rising suspicions of numerous improprieties as a major cause of our current financial crisis:

Some Wall Street players suspect that certain bailouts engineered by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve were motivated by a logic never revealed to the public. The suspicion goes like this: the strange and costly rescue of AIG, an insurance company facing bankruptcy, was really intended to save Goldman Sachs, the premier investment house. If AIG went down, it would threaten Goldman and other big holders of AIG’s collapsing derivative contracts….

Congress, and even former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker have expressed serious concerns about our current course:

The White House plan, which rearranges the boxes among regulatory agencies and puts the Fed in charge, is stalled by rising skepticism in Congress and doubts expressed by establishment figures like former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who is particularly wary of making the “too big to fail” doctrine into a permanent assumption… Volcker asked, “Will not the pattern of protection for the largest banks and their holding companies tend to encourage greater risk-taking… especially when compensation practices so greatly reward short-term success?”

Congressional investigations into the problem

Most important, Greider sees some hope in two investigations that are currently being conducted, despite the lack of attention to the problem by our corporate media, the lack of serious reforms to date, and the apparent lack of interest by our government in addressing the problem. He discusses these investigations in his most recent article, “Memo to Investigators: Dig Deep”.

One investigation is being undertaken by the 10-member Congressional Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, chaired by Phil Angelides. Angelides seemed optimist about the investigation in his interview with Greider. He said:

If we stick to the hard facts, we might turn up some perpetrators, but our job is to accomplish something more than that. If we pursue all the facts, we can give the American people a clear understanding of what occurred during the last twenty years or so. What forces lit the fire that led to this explosion? What exactly happened with those financial firms that failed? What happened in regulation or at the Federal Reserve? …

The other investigation is being conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Edolphus Towns. Greider notes that that committee:

broke a hoary taboo this summer – unprecedented in modern times – by issuing two subpoenas to the Federal Reserve… The Fed tried to duck and dodge, but given its tarnished reputation, it complied rather than provoke a fight it was bound to lose.

Greider discusses a long series of questions that should be addressed by these committees:

Why, for instance, hasn’t the Treasury bought up rotten assets from the troubled banks after demanding Congress put up $700 billion for that purpose?...A far larger crime may lurk at the center of the crisis – wholesale securities fraud…. More important, however, is the role of financial models for creating opportunities for deliberate acts of securities fraud. That’s what investigators can examine. What did the Wall Street firms know about the reliability of these models when they sold the securities? And what did they tell the buyers?

Our current crisis in the perspective of history

History is replete with stories of the powerful attempting to maintain an iron grasp over society and its wealth and resources. In our own country we saw the effects in the Great Depression that followed the Stock Market Crash of 1929. At that time we were very fortunate to be led by one of the two greatest presidents of our history. FDR was quite aware of the effects of economic inequality and the greedy powers behind it. In his 1936 Democratic Convention speech he called them “Economic Royalists”:

Out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital … the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service…

The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man…

FDR responded with the “New Deal”, a program that provided relief to those who needed it, reversed the economic inequality that had risen to record levels during the 1920s, and made great progress towards lifting us out of the Great Depression. So successful were those policies that for several decades no successful challenge could be mounted against them. Our next Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, recognized the popularity and worth of FDR’s policies in a letter that he wrote to his brother on the subject:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are… a few Texas oil millionaires… Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

But few people living today remember those times. Beginning in the 1980s with the Reagan presidency, the Economic Royalists ascended again and began the dismantling of the New Deal. Greider gives a brief history of the financial aspects of this process:

Driven by Friedmanite ideology, Fed governors tipped the normal balance in favor of capital over labor, the financial sector over the productive economy. The result was numerous disorders, including the triumph of the financiers and swelling income inequality. Monetary policy became unreliable as “bubbles” inflated, followed by recession…. Debt exploded, accumulating far faster than economic growth. Instead of candidly addressing the central bank’s weakness, though, Alan Greenspan led cheers for the new order – right up to the day it collapsed….

And lastly, Greider notes that a thorough investigation is a first step towards a cure:

The investigation can restart the debate on more honest terms. Asking deeper questions about the true sources of the calamity is a first step toward developing authentic answers to the nation’s predicament.

[PDJane]

1. bookmarking for a long read, following all the threads,

When my vision isn't blurry and I'm not aching all over.

Thank you, but this requires time to absorb!

[Zenlitened]

2. K&R. An excellent read.

[BeHereNow]

3. K&R because THIS thread MATTERS! n/t

bhn

[anonymous171]

4. Bookmarked. nt

[waiting for hope]

5. K&R

Geithner needs to go - who wants to bet odds he stays the full term?

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. Fox guarding the hen house.

[mod mom]

6. Some change, isn't it? rec'd & thank you TFC!

[Time for change]

35. Not much change in this area

I think that the president is being ill served by his economic advisors -- Of course, that statement is not at all meant to clear him of responsibility for this.

[glitch]

43. I wish Obama felt Time for change DU threads as must-read as I do. K & R nt

[Vidar]

7. K&R

[zeemike]

8. Because inequities abound, the love of many will wax cold

Seems to be the position we are in.
And i don't think I will live long enough to see the changes we need....but change we must.

[boobooday]

9. Impressive research!

Important topic.

[debbierlus]

10. Kick Kick Kick

[slipslidingaway]

11. "...TARP was but a small fraction of the full $17.5 trillion ..."

from your link to the Nation article.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091012/prins_hayes

:(

Thank you.

[slipslidingaway]

12. Memo to Investigators: Dig Deep

From your link...so true - Dig Deep!

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091026/greider/2

"...Here are some promising targets for investigators:

Collusion in High Places. Some Wall Street players suspect that certain bailouts engineered by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve (including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former head of the New York Fed) were motivated by a logic never revealed to the public. The suspicion goes like this: the strange and costly rescue of AIG, an insurance company facing bankruptcy, was really intended to save Goldman Sachs, the premier investment house. If AIG went down, it would threaten Goldman and other big holders of AIG's collapsing derivative contracts. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein participated in the pre-bailout discussions, an oddity revealed by Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times. Afterward, Goldman got paid off in full with the public's money--$12.9 billion to erase its exposure.

Something similar is suspected about the Bear Stearns bailout. The intention may have been to protect JPMorgan Chase, the commercial bank with the largest holdings of vulnerable derivatives. Morgan Chase demanded and got full federal financing for any losses it might suffer by taking over Bear Stearns (in effect, the bank was reimbursed for its own rescue). Did Washington decline to rescue Lehman Brothers because the firm was not sponsored by an important club member that felt threatened by Lehman's demise?"


This was written in April 2008...

http://contraryinvestor.com/2008archives/moapril08.htm

"...Alright, fine, so how does the credit default swap market relate to equity market sector volatility of the moment? It is absolutely clear that the "acquisition" of Bear avoided triggering Bear Stearns related credit default swaps and swaps against CDO, SIV, etc. positions they may have held (assuming a potential Bear BK would have forced a mark to market event), which would indeed have happened had Bear formally entered bankruptcy and their bonds/debt became potentially very meaningfully impaired. There is simply no question whatsoever in our minds that this was the key reason a theoretical acquisition of Bear HAD to happen. Remember the details. JPM took out Bear for a couple of hundred million at the headline $2 per share initial offer level, but concurrently announced it was going to need to charge off about $6 billion as a result of the so-called acquisition. Even at the ultimate $10 level (which is basically shut up money offered to help prevent litigation, which might also have led to asset price discovery) JPM was "telling" us Bear was worth far less than zero by the charge-off number alone. Of course the truth simply had to be that if Bear had filed bankruptcy and the credit default swaps written against their bonds/debt/asset positions had been triggered, the credit default swap liabilities in the market would have been well north of a $6 billion hit to whomever had written those Bear specific CDS contracts. Well north. And that simply could not have been allowed to happen. By the way, just as an item of curiosity, JP Morgan has exposure to over 55% of the total banking system credit default swaps outstanding. Are we connecting the dots clearly enough for you?

Sorry, back to the issue at hand. So Bear avoids formally blowing up and the credit default swaps written against their liabilities/investment positions, etc. now become a moot point as JP Morgan (or for the true problem credits, should we say the Fed) is the new creditor and market based asset price discovery is avoided..."

[BobTheSubgenius]

13. I read the Contrary Investor.

A real no-nonsense approach and presentation, but it is SO geared towards the highly-informed and skilled investor. I have basic undergrad economics, a pretty good vocabulary and some overall knowledge, but I often read a line or paragraph and have NO idea what I've just read.

Is it just me?

[Time for change]

18. My opinion

Some economists, such as the 6 that I quote in this OP, make every effort to write in a way that ordinary people can understand them, and also explain the issues in terms of how they relate to ordinary people, rather than relying solely on opaque "economic indicators" that have unknown relevance to the lives of ordinary people.

Others are either incapable of such writing, or they purposely write in a way that nobody will be able to understand them, or else they purposely distort reality so that people will be forced to take their conclusions on faith or not take them at all.

That may be an oversimplification of the situation, but that's largely the way I see it.

[slipslidingaway]

21. NO, no, no! BUT, so many times I have said to people...

"take what you can get" from the articles as there is almost always something to ponder in the monthly updates. I also like the long term charts, information I would never look at if it was not presented to me.

This is what I posted just the other day about CI ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6717989&mesg_id=6731460

FWIW came across this as well from 2005 talking about the real estate market...and we know what happened. They have a free monthly article that I try to read and comprehend.

For me they have been an important tool in the toolbox since late 1999 and I could point to many great commentaries since that time which helped me make a decision with our IRA account.

So I say read, re-read, think and take what you can get.

:hi:

[Time for change]

17. William Greider is a real gem

He digs deeply, but writes in a way that is understandable to ordinary people. He has been digging into the inroads of corruption into our government for a long time. I first became aware of him when I read his book, "Who Will Tell the People?", in the 90s -- One of the best books I've ever read.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Yes he his and I can only hope that they will dig deeply :) n/t

[Rex]

14. Nice.

Been getting screwed by greedy people for a looonnnggg time now. Reagan really paved the way.

[Norrin Radd]

15. kr

Thanks. You are a gem.

[Greyhound]

16. Auto K&R.

I always seem to find your threads right before bed.
:grr:

Back tomorrow...

[Overseas]

20. K&R.

I had hoped President Obama would follow the FDR model. But with all those Goldman Sachs guys in charge of the treasury it looks like we're just bailing out and reestablishing the old models. I'd like to hope that continued pressure by the common-sense side can push him in that direction, having heard that FDR started out more conservative and was pushed in the direction of public spending, but we keep seeing more deference to voodoo economic concepts.

I was disappointed in how small the stimulus was. Didn't understand how basic economics like when us working class people get back to work we will spend that money right away which will revive our economy just didn't get the vocal backing it needed. I didn't hear enough about that at the time. The right wing campaign to take over our national broadcast media has been so successful that we heard much more about "government handouts" and posturing Republican governors refusing the funding than we did about the basic economics.

Then, when the healthcare debate began, instead of a strong messaging campaign by the Democrats to give the public a very significant bailout by opening up Medicare to all who choose it as the public option to beat, they took it off the table. That was a very sad signal. It was such a great opportunity for the Democrats. Our existing system was clearly broken-- escalating premiums and private profits while more and more people were dropped from coverage and bankrupted by paying medical bills-- expanding and improving Medicare for all who choose it was the ideal remedy. "We consider health care a human right and not a privilege for the rich," was a classic Democratic perspective that should have been trumpeted loudly at the start of formal discussions. But the privatizers were appeased again. Instead of fighting for the best option for the public, our Democratic legislators agreed to take it off the table at the beginning of formal discussion. That was really depressing.

We were disturbed to see President Obama putting the finance sector guys in charge of our treasury, but he could have offset that disappointment by giving the public a great bailout it needs-- freedom from the terror of health insecurity-- but his team didn't do that. They continued to defer to the failed Republican economic policies favoring privatization.

In other areas too, I want to see an undoing of Republican privatization, but haven't seen enough yet. I get the impression that President Obama has bought into the myth that the private sector can do things better-- even after 8 years of rampant war profiteering by the Bush Cheney gang.

I still hope continued public pressure can get more Democrats to embrace the changes we voted for because I am more comfortable being optimistic, but the power of corporate funding seems quite overwhelming.

[Time for change]

37. I think that a strong public option is gathering steam

The American people are making their wishes known to Congress, and the outlook looks brighter to me now than it has in a while. I think that those who have been against the PO are beginning to worry about their chances for re-election if they don't get with the program. That's not to say that it's going to happen, but I think that things are going in the right directions.

[Overseas]

53. Hope so. But we still see the "bipartisan" pretense dominating congressional debate.

We the people, and a few courageous legislators, have given the Democrats permission to give the 44,000 per year who die more quickly without insurance more importance than getting one lonely GOP vote to pretend bipartisanship still exists. Why are they still pretending?

And where did that tough guy talk about deposing committee chairs who support GOP filibustering go?

How sad that our health security was sold so cheaply. It would have been more economical for us to have bribed our congresspeople directly than via the 3rd party private insurers who kept jacking up our premiums and dropping our coverage.

So, sure, I get excited when it seems like single payer is rising again. Then I see the ridiculous honoring of Olympia Snowe, like she's some kind of hero because she voted against her party, even after her posturing that she just may not vote for the plan again. (So I guess we'd better have our president honor all those Blue Dogs that vote against their party time and again. Guess they're showing "courage and seriousness of purpose" too, eh?)

How obstructionist and brutal does the right wing GOP have to get before we stop gutting all our proposals to appease them? I thought stirring up the lunatic gun-toting fringe would surely have been enough.

The GOP is The 29% Party now, for goodness' sake.

Very difficult not to think that the Democrats are using the GOP for cover. Can't help thinking our Democrats have been waving the long gone "bipartisan" flag around to cover their unwillingness to challenge corporate power.

I thought at some point our president would drop the bipartisan stuff. We all know the GOP hasn't been bipartisan in years. It is always a lovely campaign statement-- bringing people together and all. But I thought the "he's playing chess" reason behind pretending bipartisanship existed would have become clear by now. Have we not collected enough obstructionist video clips to defeat more Republicans in 2010? Isn't it now time for our president to say-- Enough!-- to pretending bipartisanship exists and give us Medicare for all who choose it?

Why do you think President Obama still clings to pretending bipartisanship exists? Do you think he will ever stop doing so?

[Time for change]

55. Very good questions. I can't answer them.

I was upset with Obama's "bipartisanship" before he got the Democratic nomination for president, and I've become a lot more upset with his "bipartisanship" since he's become president. The peak of my disappointment with that process was when he announced to Congress a health "reform" plan that would be open only to those without insurance and was expected to cover only 5% of the American people. This is what I've said about bipartisanship in the past:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4504285

Often, I just don't know what to think. I'm thinking that if we get legislation with a strong public option in it, I don't know how much credit Obama will deserve for it.

But to get back to your question about President Obama, sometimes I think that he might be operating under a lot more pressure than many of us realize:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5361126

[Myrina]

23. Lost my job in Feb, renegotiated my mortgage with Citi ...

... took a new job paying about $6k a year less in June, Citi completed the 'new mortgage' and it comes out $30 a month less than it was previously. How much did Citi get, per mortgage modified, under taxpayer funded TARP? I'm guessing a hell of alot more than $30.
Can I get my portion back now, please?

:mad:

[blindpig]

24. What good

is freedom of the press, freedom of speech, when they can do this shit right out in the open? These freedoms are but tits on a boar, the muscle of money renders them impotent.

k&r

[Time for change]

41. Freedom of the press

doesn't mean much corporations monopolize the "public" airways to a large extent. They do stuff out in the open, and the the corporate news media covers for them by putting their special spin on things, or ignoring them entirely.

[pleah]

25. K&R

[omega minimo]

26. Thanks again TFC, as ever. Here's a link to threads on Moyers program with Rep. Kaptur

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6750342

[Time for change]

46. Moyers is one of the very best journalists around

Thank you for the link. And thank God for Bill Moyers.

[katty]

27. K&R

[Greyhound]

28. "Trickle down" economics part deux.

It all comes back to the people knowing less than nothing about our monetary and economic systems.

The "Crash of '08" was simply extortion and we paid. Now, like any good extortionist, they will keep bleeding us, forever.

[Soylent Brice]

29. K&R

this will most likely be the most bookmarked thread this month.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

30. This is what it feels like to be an average American.

Guess which one is the government / big cororations and which one is the American taxpayer.

?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=4C82CE9872E16B24E4B8E2A0E771C8F3E30A760B0D811297

[Raster]

31. Recommend! Recommend! Recommend!

:kick::kick::kick:

[OnyxCollie]

32. K&R.

Bookmarking.

[Nikki Stone1]

33. You have compiled a great deal of important information here. I have read your entire post

and feel that this is one of these rare posts that should be tacked to the top of the board and not lost in the archives. Do you have a blog?

[Time for change]

47. Thank you so much

The only blog I have is my DU journal.

[bergie321]

34. K&R

Great Read

[Time for change]

48. Thank you -- And welcome to DU

:toast:

[azygous]

36. Health insurance industry is destroying the economy

No where have I seen this discussed. I doubt I'm the only one who has one third of my retirement pay check go to health insurance and deductibles. This doesn't even count co-pays and medicine. When such a huge portion of my earnings go to the health insurance industry, that leaves very little left over for other spending.

It seems to me that other industry and businesses ought to be rising up in opposition to the insurance and health industry and start demanding their rightful share of discretionary spending.

Why doesn't anyone talk about this when they discuss how bad the economy is doing?

[Stand and Fight]

38. I can't believe this isn't at the top of the list on the Greatest.

Astounding. Chilling.

[sam sarrha]

39. a Corporate State ... is the Definition of ....FASCISM

[mother earth]

40. The corporations have usurped our gov't by linging corrupt

pockets and dictating trade law, etc., I'm way past patience. It's time for the emergence of a strong third party. I hope Sanders runs, I'm so sick of the inaction. I'm so sick of the criminal cabal who got away with everything, all manner of crimes. Everything that was in place as a protection has been step by step overturned, weakened or dismantled.

We should all be very ashamed in this country, rule of law is for the poor, the rich can do whatever they wish & they can screw their business into the ground & expect the taxpayers to bear the burden.

The flippin oil barrens and their ilk have wrought us into the mouth of hell. It's been a celebration of stomping the middle class to death, and still nothing to change any of this is on the horizon.

[Time for change]

51. Yes

I too am getting to the point where I'd like to see a third party -- maybe called the "Anti-corporate Party". In the absence of a third party, it would be good to see a lot of primary challenges from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I wonder if Feingold is considering running in 2012?

[slipslidingaway]

42. kick - happy to see this post have over 100 recs. n/t

[theFrankFactor]

44. TFC - Another Great Piece! Thank You. K&R

[earth mom]

45. K & R & Bookmarked. nt

[Roland99]

49. A far cry from what corporations were *originally* intended to be (for the public good) >>>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6776663

[Roland99]

50. 1999 Sen. Dorgan (D-ND) - "we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this"

More from Dorgan:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_12/b4124015544562.htm

Many of the largest banks got involved in very risky enterprises, and I don't think they necessarily have a divine right to be saved. In 1999 I was one of eight senators who worked against what was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, named after Senator Phil Gramm. But it was fully supported by President Clinton and Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, etc. And it repealed the Glass-Steagall Act and many of the protections put in place after the Great Depression. I wasn't so prescient, but I just felt that allowing the banks to create big holding companies with so-called firewalls, which turn out to be tissue-paper firewalls, and then to take on massive risk from real estate and securities, was just fundamentally wrong.

[redqueen]

54. Thanks for quoting Dorgan.

:thumbsup:

That was their foot in the door... and it's been downhill ever since.

[Autumn]

52. K/R Bookmarked

:kick: Thank you.

[Blue_Tires]

56. bookmarked

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. Bookmarked for more reading n/t

[PufPuf23]

58. You are brilliant TFC

Be safe and happy.

[Karenina]

59. bttt!

[LatteLibertine]

60. Good post

Yes, our buddies at Goldman Sachs will be enjoying a 99% bonus increase this year.

Honestly, I am not sure if we will ever be able to end these things, along with crony capitalism and corporatism. An overwhelming majority of votes are simply bought.

[slipslidingaway]

61. kick nt

[DemReadingDU]

62. Thanks

You're always so very thorough with lots of data to back up everything.