Wall Street's Bailout a Trillion-Dollar Crime Scene -- Why Aren't the Dems Doing Something About it?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By Naomi Klein, The Nation. Posted November 14, 2008

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107000/wall_street%27s_bailout_is_a_trillion-dollar_crime_scene_--_why_aren%27t_the_dems_doing_something_about_it_/

---snip---

Despite all of this potential lawlessness, the Democrats are either openly defending the administration or refusing to intervene. "There is only one president at a time," we hear from Barack Obama. That's true. But every sweetheart deal the lame-duck Bush administration makes threatens to hobble Obama's ability to make good on his promise of change. To cite just one example, that $140 billion in missing tax revenue is almost the same sum as Obama's renewable energy program. Obama owes it to the people who elected him to call this what it is: an attempt to undermine the electoral process by stealth.

Yes, there is only one president at a time, but that president needed the support of powerful Democrats, including Obama, to get the bailout passed. Now that it is clear that the Bush administration is violating the terms to which both parties agreed, the Democrats have not just the right but a grave responsibility to intervene forcefully.

I suspect that the real reason the Democrats are so far failing to act has less to do with presidential protocol than with fear: fear that the stock market, which has the temperament of an overindulged 2-year-old, will throw one of its world-shaking tantrums. Disclosing the truth about who is receiving federal loans, we are told, could cause the cranky market to bet against those banks. Question the legality of equity deals and the same thing will happen. Challenge the $140 billion tax giveaway and mergers could fall through. "None of us wants to be blamed for ruining these mergers and creating a new Great Depression," explained one unnamed Congressional aide.

More than that, the Democrats, including Obama, appear to believe that the need to soothe the market should govern all key economic decisions in the transition period. Which is why, just days after a euphoric victory for "change," the mantra abruptly shifted to "smooth transition" and "continuity." . . . .

[JDPriestly]

1. Proud to be the first to recommend this thread.

Great article. Great thread.

Walking precincts in Southern Ohio, anger at the bail-out motivated a lot of people to vote for Obama. If the new Democratic administration allows the bail-out to continue to unfold as it has thus far, the Obama administration will not be re-elected in 2012.

We need Democrats with some idealism, some consistent underlying convictions that guide them in deciding where they stand on policy issues. The Republicans are too ideolgical, too rigid, but Democrats are far too flexible, too willing to compromise on anything.

We often read on DU that Democrats need to develop spine. Spine arises from strong values. As a Democrat, I have clear, strong values but it seems that a lot of Democrats in Congress and other political offices are very wishy-washy. We have to bring them back to the values they claimed they held before they were elected to office, like belief in the rule of law, in the supremacy of the American Constitution and in fair play. This bail-out violates all the principles that we Democrats stand for. It has to be stopped.

[Donnachaidh]

2. well, they lied us into a war we didn't need -- why not lie us into

a Great Depression, following just as Obama takes office. This whole deal has stunk from day one. I'd love to see Paulson doing a perp walk - just for not disclosing who has been paid off.

[JeanGrey]

3. Because they are in it up to their eyebrows as well!

[truedelphi]

8. Yes sadly they are.

How is it that so many indie reporters knew that the derivative market would bring down the banking industry (and have been saying so since Oct 2007) - but M$M kept saying that the economy's only worry was only the sub prime mortgage market?

Now that the other shoe has dropped, the people in charge like Greenspan or Paulson, they keep saying "How could we have ever known that this would happen?""

Uh, because there are only five or six laws of economics (One is "What goes up must come down" Two is: "DOn't put all your chickens in the same basket" Three is "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched" Four is "Buy low - sell high" FIve is "A moderte amount of sensible regulation is a good thing" and i leave you to come up with number six on your own)

But the people that keep selling us on what secter of the economy is worth investing in -- they never ever mention that that secter is nothing more than a bubble. In other words, they don't even understand the meaning of rule number one above.

[acmavm]

4. Klein keeps poijnting out that this was/is all part and parcel of a criminal

act(s), and no one listens.

The American people are asses. They need to gather up the metaphorical pitchforks and light the torches and chase these bastards down.

[nichomachus]

5. I hope that's a rhetorical question n/t

[fasttense]

6. Welcome to the Republicon Great Recession

Only surpassed by the Republicon Great Depression.

One thing Republicons are very good at is destroying the US and world economies.

[OneBlueSky]

7. to paraphrase the late Sen. Everett Dirksen . . .

"A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." . . .

[Vidar]

9. Because they're complicit--as per usual