Pitchforks and Torches.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 5:12 am

Some bailout details

Relevant highlights:

``other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets,''

The Treasury would also have discretion, after discussions with the Fed, to make non-U.S. financial institutions eligible under the program.

Please reconcile those facts with the belief that

The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.

is a negative characterization.

Because it sure seems like a wishlist for a set of outright bribes and kickbacks to me, and an outright subversion of constitutional checks and balances.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 5:41 am

Oh yeah it is pretty crazy. The idea is they are going to get 700 Billion Dollars, spend all of it on whichever set of wall street buddies the treasury secretary feels like without oversight and with a waiver for any and all legal repercussions.

They buy at whatever price their buddies want, and it will be WAY too high for the damaged goods being bought because thats part of the GENIUS plan that makes this work (hint, this genius plan isn't very genius and won't actually work) then they sell what little they can and instead of keeping the "profits" go on to buy MORE crap debt until they can't sell any anymore and the total cost is ultimatly 700 Billion dollars with slightly more than that technically having been spent.

Anyway the whole idea is supposed to work because its supposedly just a "liquidity problem" except word on the street among the hip young economists is that that's bald faced optimism/lies and there is real bad debt behind all this and its just throwing even more good money after bad (or perhaps bad money after bad what with the potential for inflation and US economic collapse).

Anyway, in short the proposed legislation is very very short, very very expensive, and full of vast sweeping executive powers and immunity to prosecution. And it probably won't work but it WILL pretty much guaranteed put lots of money into the pockets of a few rich cronies.

It's pretty much the typical representative Bush/Republican corrupt policy making.

Edit: Doesn't this just make you absolutely confident this is a careful plan with confidence in success and not a big pile of free money for cronies...

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 5:54 am

The Hoover comparison is particularly apt.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:06 am

So we're looking at yet another epic failure, with the Republicans somehow thinking it's a good idea to give lots of money to their rich friends.

Is there actually a way to stop this trainwreck? Not that "solution", I'm referring to the financial shitstorm currently festering. It looks like it's pretty much collapsed, and they've helped this happen constantly, and the best that can be done is try to prop it up for a little bit until it becomes someone else's problem.

But is there actually a solution, or is it too late and people* are pretty much fucked?

*Except for the really rich people, of course.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:27 pm

Is there actually a way to stop this trainwreck?

Yes. See thread title.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:07 pm

I hear that breaking people out of prison and declaring a general strike have been historically successful in turning around economic tailspins and removing the corrupt leadership which created them.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:30 am

So, revolution and civil war are favourites then. Groovy. Where's Lenin when you need him?

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:19 am

And all this time I was wondering why the Bush administration was so enthusiastically behind the nationalization of the financial industry. Of course, anything that feeds into the administration's desire for more and more unchecked executive power would gain its unqualified support.

And they want to also bail out their friends in foreign businesses. I'll certainly sleep better knowing that Phil Gramm's employer might qualify for this bailout.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:37 am

You know, I wouldn't want to encourage any crimes to take place, because that in itself is probably a crime, but didn't someone here say that the reason Americans need their guns is so that they can fight the government when necessary?

This seems like an ideal opportunity for someone to do that. The fact that it isn't happening suggests that I was right: even if everyone did get the gun out from under their bed and band together, the corrupt government has armies and stuff that could utterly own them.

Unless the real reason Frank returned from Czech Republic was to return from exile and overthrow the tyrants, setting up a glorious Socialist Republic with his comrades?

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:30 am

Well, that was the casoe ORIGINALLY.

After the Civil War, it was determined that states rebelling against the federal government wasn't a good thing, so they reduced it.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am

Koumei wrote: This seems like an ideal opportunity for someone to do that. The fact that it isn't happening suggests that I was right: even if everyone did get the gun out from under their bed and band together, the corrupt government has armies and stuff that could utterly own them.

Well yes and no. If the people rose up in an organized fashion, they could actually take control of the government, the problem is that the people aren't organized, and the army is.

But really, at the end of the day, the army is just a bunch of people, and once the people unify as a group, it's a good bet that a lot of the army is going to desert.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:31 pm

Sadly the army made up of people in the USA is now made up of a dominant faction of insane fundie Christians. Prayer meetings at the Pentagon and all that didn't you know.

Fundie Christians may be dissatisfied with Bush but over all they are cool with his policies and don't care about the economy. They like the war on brown people, they hate democrats and they have their own stealth fundie Christian lunatic horse in the next election.

So if the army DID rise up it would only be to crown Palin queen and Jeebus their king, then they'll launch the nukes on all the demon countries (ie, everyone).

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:00 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:Sadly the army made up of people in the USA is now made up of a dominant faction of insane fundie Christians. Prayer meetings at the Pentagon and all that didn't you know.

Fundie Christians may be dissatisfied with Bush but over all they are cool with his policies and don't care about the economy. They like the war on brown people, they hate democrats and they have their own stealth fundie Christian lunatic horse in the next election.

So if the army DID rise up it would only be to crown Palin queen and Jeebus their king, then they'll launch the nukes on all the demon countries (ie, everyone).

Even so, it's hard to feel like righteous soldiers when you have to turn your weapons on your own country's civilians, and I suspect a lot of them may change sides instead of firing on their own people.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:22 pm

Ahh, but they've been taught that civilians have no respect for them and are destroying our country with their tolerance and hippyism.

-Crissa

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:28 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:Sadly the army made up of people in the USA is now made up of a dominant faction of insane fundie Christians.

That's a ... really inaccurate view of the U.S. Army. I think it's time to clean your crystal ball.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Even so, it's hard to feel like righteous soldiers when you have to turn your weapons on your own country's civilians....

Not so much. Our feelings would depend more on what they're doing and if we agree with them.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:05 pm

My Crystal ball is google. It tells me many secrets.

House of God

Prayer for promotion

General of god

The Army's Bible

god's pentagon video

God's Basic Training

A relevant oragnization

Fake Fundie reformed Terrorists

Pentagon prayer meetings run by loonatics

One of the key things to get from this is that in 2005 when 14% of the US population were "evangelicals" (ie fucking crazy) 40% of the armed services were and 60% of their chaplains were (note the chaplain figure is important these guys are highly active in proselytising and growing their faith against all regulation and modern social standards)

And that was three years ago. For the entire period the Bush administration has seen a purge of sensible brass and a promotion of brass which support them and the 'war on terra' with fanatical uncritical zeal, and guess WHICH 40% of Brass that happens to be...

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:38 pm

Somehow, I'm going to credit Sir Neil's actual current enlistment over the internet links on that one.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:58 pm

That's stupid, Josh.

Neil's never tried to hold atheist club meetings. Neil's never been a female in the service. Neil probably never even asked his fellows what their background is and compared that to the states in general. Neil probably never had to deal with going through boot camp as a non-christian.

Neil has anecdotes.

-Crissa

Army: Sun is causing Global Warming, Not Man.

Army covers up murder (one of about a hundred different murders one can find on the internet)

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:01 pm

Since I joined in 2006, I haven't experienced religious pressure from any of my fellow soldiers, nor has it come down my chain of command. Further, my units don't even have chaplains, much less illegal activist chaplains.

According to the internet godhammering has happened to others, and those responsible need to be thrown out, but they don't make up a "dominant faction".

(I tjecked the definition of evangelical. Supposedly they're the moderates to the conservative fundamentalist and liberal mainline -- that doesn't scream "fucking crazy" to me.)

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:07 pm

Crissa wrote:Neil's never tried to hold atheist club meetings. Neil's never been a female in the service. Neil probably never even asked his fellows what their background is and compared that to the states in general. Neil probably never had to deal with going through boot camp as a non-christian.

Neil has anecdotes.

True, true, false, false.

And true, but I'm late for work and don't have time to type a good one.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:17 pm

My understanding is that the Air Force is the branch that has the biggest religious-whatever-you-want-to-call-it problem.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:19 pm

PL is choosing the most restrictive version of evangelical - more people identify as evangelical than are identified via beliefs. Hence, you get moderates who identify as evangelical.

However, PL is quoting from studies which grouped evangelical by belief rather than self-reporting.

-Crissa