Well as the kabuki theater unfolds

[nadinbrzezinski]

there is one thing those people in that club don't realize. People where I live are angry. They do not understand why with these majorities they cannot do what the people want.

So expect 2010 to be very interesting. After all the GOP has a base that is somewhat dishearteened, and the base for the dems may just stay home. Why bother voting? Yes I can hear it.

Me, I said it before, to them. They don't get a PO out... I will NOT vote for a democrat, or a republican ever again. It is that simple. I am done playing the game. Yes, so I will "waste" my vote on a third party... well the Granger movement is part of US history and the anger is deep, and as they say, history does repeat itself as the parties have refused to learn history.

No, it is not dead yet... but the moment it does... well come 2010 I will not be voting for the two faced party of the US... I will not willingly participate in this very American form of fascism.

Now if they get a PO out... that means I keep voting for dems... just the progressive kind.

[grantcart]

1. Your right about anger - people hate their insurance provider

[HillbillyBob]

2. Might be time to run all new people, ones we can count on to push

for PO and Public Campaign funding too, and end this godam kabuki theater once and for all.

[cali]

35. no thank you. I'll keep Leahy, Sanders and Welch

not that Leahy could possibly be defeated even if I wanted that.

[endarkenment]

3. sums it up for me as well.

If 'my party' cannot get its act together to pass actual health care reform, then it is no longer my party. If the finance committee bill is the farce we are being handed, unmodified, no real public option, a mandate-gift to the private insurance industry, then the Democratic Party no longer represents me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. kick

[RagAss]

5. I will never vote again....and more than a few family and friends have said the same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Depending on what comes out

(the PO is not dead) I will either vote third party, or only for progressives.

But he real political work is no longer in the ballot box, and I think people FINALLY get this.

[Romulox]

27. +1. No point. nt

[Greyhound]

29. No! You have to vote, just vote for somebody else. When "other" starts drawing significant

percentages, things can happen.

[rd_kent]

7. I may be with you on this one.

If the Dems dont stop with the BS and just DO what they were ELECTED to do, I may also "waste" my vote on a third party. Whats sad is, we REALLY NEED a third party, desperately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Yes, we do need a third party

the way the system is designed it supports two.

[Matariki]

8. There ARE Democrats who strongly support the public option

So instead of flat out not voting for any Democrat, why not work hard to replace the bad ones? We really need to put the effort into electing real Progressives in the 2010 Primaries - not just throw up our hands in anger and despair.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Becuase the US political system needs serioius reforms

alas they involve the Constitution...

As is if they don't do what they were elected to do, and I get how sausage is made, most folks I know will not bother to vote ever again... think about that... and those precious useless majorities.

Now I know how sausage is made, why I said IF a strong PO does not come out... I will fulfill my thread to my delegation... but it is not over yet...

[Matariki]

11. Yeah, it sure seems like it's corporations that own Congress

they don't often seem like they care much about what the people who elected them want.

Still, an apathetic electorate isn't going to make things better.

I like Michael Moore's impassioned speech on this:
“To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want,” Moore told supporters of women’s groups and unions gathered at the headquarters of the government watchdog group Public Citizen. “That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you, first in the primary and, if we have to, in the general election.”
b
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=14443

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Two parties are written in stone, due to how the system works

but those two parties do not have to be the RNC and the DNC. We've been here before... I am willing to bet one of the two (I am willing to bet the RNC) is on its death bed. The other one will probably split between the conservatives and the liberals.

I am willing to help, but that may involve getting a strong third party showing... read on the Granger movement. hell, for that matter the Socialist movement. Most folks do not realize Social Security did NOT start in the Democratic Party.

There are still Granger Halls in the Midwest... and I smell something similar coming...

Santayana was right, those who refuse to learn from history...

[Romulox]

28. It's our Constitution that's flawed. A third party won't solve the problem.

I imagine how those who lived under the Articles of Confederation must've felt. We need a new Constitutional Congress.

[Greyhound]

31. I'd say the corporations own the parties, and the parties control enough of Congress

to make sure "the right thing" is always done.

[earth mom]

13. Yet you were one of the Bankster bailouts BIGGEST cheerleaders.

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Read on Keynes General Theory

then come back to me.

By the way, here is something you do not know... but FDR did something similar at a smaller scale in 1932.

Those who refuse to learn history...

:banghead:

[earth mom]

15. * & Obama are NOT FDR. Get a clue. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. You are right... and your point?

Again go read Keynes on the General Theory... then come back to me about why that was not something that should not have been done.

Here is more. the stimulus, did not go far enough... again read Keynes

But reform without PO is not reform, but lipstick on a pig

[bvar22]

18. "Something had to be done"....

...does NOT justify what WAS done by the Republicrats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Again I cite Keynes and history

The General Theory was pretty clear on what needed to be done... as distasteful as it was.

Now I do HIGHLY recommend people go out, get a copy of the General Theory and slough through it, or if they want the cliff's version, read Krugmman.

[bvar22]

25. There are credible economists who disagree with you.

It may have been necessary to re-capitalize some of the Wall Street Banks, but a no strings attached massive taxpayer funded injection of capital without up front re-regulation (Glass Steagall) will be hard for you to justify.

"Too Big to Fail" has now been enshrined as the Holy Grail of Big Corporations.
Instead of addressing the root problems, the Great Wall Street Bailout has made it worse in that respect. Some of the failed banks used the money to acquire other banks making them even BIGGER.

It may not have been a disaster to have let the failed banks go into receivership, broken up into components, and sold.
We will really never know, at least until the next time.

We do KNOW at least one thing:
The time to impose regulation and accountability is BEFORE giving out the money.
NOTHING has been dome to correct the problems.
NOTHING will be done to correct the problems....until next time.

[HamdenRice]

30. How was it "no strings attached" when they are paying back with interest

in order to get from under all the strings that were attached?

That said, I understand there are many economists who think that TARP 1 was stinky and a better deal could have been negotiated, but it seems to me that Barney Frank did a magnificent job turning Paulson's one page power grab into a 100+ page bill that made money for the Treasury.

And Bernanke's even bigger bailouts have earned something like $14 billion for the Fed.

[Romulox]

33. LOL at the "profit" schtick. Ask him to show his work. nt

[HamdenRice]

36. You continue to manage the amazing trick of posting content-free

crap non-responses to content.

[Romulox]

39. And you continue to assert a "profit" for the TARP that you cannot quantitize.

Which is the worse offense, I wonder? :silly:

[HamdenRice]

43. "quantitize"?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Your post says everything one needs to know about your "expertise" on financial and economic matters!

[Romulox]

45. Quantify. My malapropism isn't nearly as embarassing as your dishonesty, though.

Can you quantify the profits you allege? Or will you duck the question for the 10th time? :hi:

[HamdenRice]

47. Actually your malapropism is more embarassing!

As is everything else you write. You just don't know it.

:rofl:

[Romulox]

49. "Quantize" is a word used in music (among other things.) And you are avoiding the question!

All the rofl smilies in the world won't buttress your unsourced assertions regarding the TARP's profitability. Your deflections aren't convincing.

edit: I can't help but think that *I* am contributing to your nervous breakdown if only by engaging you. But I've always been civil to you, and you have the responsibility to sign out when you begin to get that light-headed, "I think I'm going to start a cultist thread!" feeling, not me.

[HamdenRice]

50. No, there is no such word as "quantitize" in music

or any other field. It's quantize. And at any rate it doesn't apply to determining profit and loss. That word is "quantify."

[Romulox]

51. Right. But you can't *quantify* this putative profit, either.

:hi:

[HamdenRice]

52. It has been many times

but you're too dim to grasp the information presented to you, so what's the point of presenting it again?

Elsewhere you've written that accounting is inherently capitalist/conservative, so an arithmetic explanation would go over your head.

[Romulox]

54. Heh. You COULD quantify this profit, if you wanted to...

You just don't want to, eh? :silly:

[bvar22]

41. Bullshit. : "Some U.S. bailout funds won't be recovered.."

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE58N0RI20090924

[HamdenRice]

44. Sure, some banks will go under and not pay

But the issue is whether the TARP bailout was "no strings attached." If it was "no strings attached" why are any of them paying back the money, and why do they say they are paying back the money because of the "strings attached" to it?

[Romulox]

46. No, the issue was the "profits" you allege. nt

[bvar22]

53. LOL. I know you are not stupid, so.....

..I am forced to assume that your agenda is to be purposely misleading.

In one post you say,
Whats the big deal. Its all being paid back.

When confronted by the FACTS you swerve off in another direction and NOW say,
So its NOT all being paid back, so what? and head off in to another Red Herring.

Paying back a Sweetheart LOAN is NOT an attached string.
Paying back a Sweetheart LOAN is Sine Qua Non.

Get out you notebook.
Here are some STRINGS.

1) Total Transparency, Accountability, and Tracking
Those borrowing funds FROM the American Taxpayer must be accountable TO the American Taxpayer.
The BOOKS must be opened.
Funds borrowed to "Rescue Troubled Assets" MUST be used to rescue troubled assets, not acquire new Banks or otherwise enhance the holding of the borrower.
If I borrow money from my bank, and use it for something other than the stated purpose, I go to jail.
So should the boards of the Wall Street Banks.

2)NO bonuses for failed execs of failed banks as long as they are holding public funds.

3) Acceptance of a binding cap (15%) on the Credit Card Division of any bank receiving bailout funds.

4) Binding agreement to divest holdings until those banks receiving Bailout Funds are no longer "Too Big to Fail".

5)Reinstatement of Glass Steagall, or legally binding agreement to abide by the provisions of Glass-Steagall or "No Money for You".

6) Acceptance of Cram Down Mortgage Renegotiation with a bulletproof contract to abide with the government negotiators to actually HELP people stay in their houses.

Now THOSE are some strings that should have been attached before handing over Public Money to FAILED Wall Street Banks.

[Romulox]

32. I've asked before. When did Keynes advocate for bailing out foreign banks

and hedge funds? :shrug:

[HamdenRice]

37. Btw...

Mom says your hot pockets are ready and getting cold! She says take a break from Dungeons and Dragons or World Wide Revolution, or whatever it else you play on your computer.

[Romulox]

38. I'll take that as a concession. nt

[bvar22]

40. You don't have to take it as a concession...

It IS a concession.

[struggle4progress]

17. We Americans seem to suffer as a group from the delusion that expressing opinions is equivalent

to meaningful political action. We also seem to suffer as a group from the delusion that once elections are over we have discharged our civic responsibilities for the next several years. A further popular delusion of ours is the notion that a few phone calls to Congress and letters to newspapers should have stunning and immediate results

Really organizing to get what we want is rather more work than that. The existing power structure will predictably resist meaningful change: it is our task to figure out how to shake this power structure at the local and state levels, as well as at the federal level, and to figure out how to agitate and mobilize a broad sector of the population for reforms -- not only in their capacity as voters, but also as consumers and as employees

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. If I could recommend this

we also have the delusion that political parties will effect change. We want change, we need MOVEMENTS.

And that is why I say we need them, and those are NOT inside the two major political parties.

[scheming daemons]

21. The vote that matters is in the Democratic primaries.... THAT is where you can effect change

10 out of 13 Democrats on the finance committee voted for a Public Option today.

The answer is *NOT* to abandon the Democratic party... but to work against the 3.


You're really going to throw the baby out with the bathwater here? You got 10/13 of the Democrats to agree with you.

The Comittee's makeup is currently 13/10 in the Dems favor. By supporting a 3rd party, all you do is move yourself *FARTHER* from your goal.



The place to fight is in the Dem primaries of the 3 idiots.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I'll remind you, voting third party will be useless only if it is me

but if this is a general MOVEMENT... change will occur.

Do I need to remind people that Social Security did NOT start in the Democratic Party. It was co-opted from the Socialist.

I know, history is not a strong point for most Americans, but I am not a party follower, but a member of a MOVEMENT... and the action for change is NOT withing parties, but within movements.

Primaries are but one tool, but not the only tool.

Also I will only fulfill that thread if there is no PO... and we both know it is not over yet.

They still need to

a) vote this out of finance.
b) reconcile with the other bill in the Senate
c) Vote it out of the floor
d) have this voted in the house
e) Reconcile both bills.
f) vote it again...
g) have it signed.

We are not there yet.

But what you are seeing, all that gnashing, is the kind of anger that has led to populist backlashes against both parties... and DC... see Granger movement for a good example.

By the way, I am of the opinion that the two party system needs to be reformed and go for proportional representation. That will never happen in my lifetime.

[Romulox]

34. Nonsense. It's decided for most us before we get a chance to vote.

The smallest, least diverse, and most conservative states are reserved spots at the head of the line.

[ipaint]

22. And the public option needs to be medicare for anyone who chooses it.

None of this half-assed built to fail bullshit. A weak public option doesn't count.

And the anger is not just healthcare, it's letting the previous torture administration off free, it's the wall street bailout, it's seeing tent communities full of the jobless and increasing numbers of people begging at intersections, it's the sneaky way they cut social security cost of living increases, etc.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. It is deep, and health care is the tip of the iceberg

you are correct.

[bvar22]

26. Angry?...Who is angry?

NOW we have Your Children’s Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THIS is “Bi-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!

[fascisthunter]

42. the problem is, Americans are not electing Presidents

money is... in order for a person to even run in a primary, that person has got to be bought and paid for, or else the media will shut them out. Americans have no access to becoming a President unless you are well connected and financed.

Now we no longer have faith in our voting process, never mind the politicans we are forced to pick from. Money has been doing all that for us. We have allowed wealth to take over this country, and now we have to take it back from them.

[Individualist]

48. +1