BUY IN, OR BAILOUT? September 25, 2008
Posted by wmmbb in US Politics.trackback
Don’t listen to the people because they do not know anything right, but we control the media and that is the way and path of power.
Don’t listen to the people’s representatives, they might be on the money, but then do give them any media time, so the people remain addicted to that stuff they are smoking – or what ever other self medication they are resorting to nowadays.
Representative Marcy Kaptur (via Glenn Greenwald) might very well be on the money:
Glenn Greenwald’s discussion with Richard Sheehan is remarkably sane. (That’s a lesson for me. I pick up on a consensus expert view, and go with that, whereas there might be alternative expert opinion. In this situation, as in many others, I have to rely on opinion of those who have expertise I do not have. Having listened to those views, I am in a better opinion to make a judgment.)
An editorial in The NYT argues that an inadequate case has been made for the bailout.
The really interesting debate and discussion was not on Capitol Hill in Washington by at the East River in New York. G Bush would not know his legacy if he tripped at the podium of the United Nations. That unprepossessing Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, is sounding every day as the crisis continues with it global repercussions more and more like a world leader. BBC reports:
But in the UN corridors today Mr Bush seemed in danger of appearing out of touch.
The buzz this week is not about terrorism, but the implications of financial turmoil, generated in part within the United States, but affecting countries way beyond US borders.
Sharpshooters stand on the roof of the UN ahead of the General Assembly
Security is tight as world leaders attend the General AssemblyAnd no national American policy, whether enacted by president or Federal Reserve is any longer seen as sufficient.
Many seemed to think there needed to be collective action, which took into account the impact on poor countries as well as rich ones.
With American power seemingly on the wane, there were calls from the podium for a new global leadership to fill a growing vacuum.
“The global financial crisis endangers all our work. If ever there were a call for collective action – a call for global leadership – it is now,” declared UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran – in what is becoming something of a UN ritual – laid into the United States wholesale, describing it as a “bullying nation” and declaring it was on its last legs.
He said the “American empire” was reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers would have to limit their interference to their own borders.
But others usually more friendly to Washington added their voices to what appears to be a growing feeling that – in the light of this latest crisis – reform of international institutions is now well overdue.
Brazil’s president denounced what he called the “anarchy of speculators” whose “profits were always to be privatised, while their losses are invariably socialised”.
He went on to criticise international institutions which he said needed to be “rebuilt on entirely new foundations”.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was even blunter.
“We cannot wait any longer to enlarge the Security Council. We cannot wait any longer to turn the G8 into the G13 or G14, to bring in China, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil,” he said.
Next year’s G8 host, Italy, was already planning to propose an enlargement, he said.
But the French president’s wider point was also that new lessons had to be drawn from today’s financial crisis.
His solution: a gathering of heads of state before the end of the year to work out new rules for the global economy.
“Let us rebuild together regulated capitalism, in which whole swathes of financial activity are not left up to market operators, in which banks do their job of financing development instead of encouraging speculation, and where rules of caution apply to all, to avert shocks, instead of exacerbating them,” he announced.
A recipe for a new global set of financial rules?
It is only the end of day one of the General Assembly debate, but already it feels as though a consensus is building. The question is, as usual at the United Nations, will these fine speeches ever be turned into action?
I agree with you wmmbb. For a main party representative, she is extremely lucid. I wish more “Democratic” representatives were as interested in staight talk, instead of twisting words against their meaning. Kucinich was a cool Democrat as well. He got completely railroaded by Democratic leadership though.
On the “Republican” side, I liked Ron Paul. I didn’t agree with much of his approach, but he was way better than the “Democrat” or “Republican” options.
I sometimes think that Ron Paul would have been the real centerist/federalist Republican, and Ralph Nader, the real centeralist/federalist Democrat, McKinney the “current Democrat” and Barr the “current Republican” options this year, in an ideal, real-issue election. Obama and McCain are too much the same on insurance, wall street, interventionalist and corporate lobbyist connection perspectives. McKinney could have been the out there third party, with much truth but little plans, if what people cared about really mattered with our politics. Instead, we let the Democrats and Republicans make it a lesser of two evils.
I have no idea why any Americans would desire to have incompetent person as their leader. Those of us who live on the other part of the planet do not want that either. As far as I am aware not set of humans has ever had that goal. I recall the example of the medieval pope who was selected because he was thought be the holiest person around, and that made a sort of sense, but it soon gave way to Innocent III.
There are a number of people with the ability to be president available, excluding the outlandish claimants such as John McCain and Sarah Palin, who are both very frightening individuals (for different reasons). It seems to me, and I think we agree here James, that the selection and election processes are deeply flawed and ineffective. For example, consider the cost and time of the Democratic Primaries, and I am just being critical because I can appreciate the merit of the process. Then you have Sarah Palin selected, as it were, out of nowhere, and if she had been a truly exceptionally talented person there would not be a problem, but transparently she isn’t.
The problems are easier to see than practical solutions, however I suspect, regardless of political leanings, the American people as a whole would be amenable to practical solutions and public policy to the electoral process. Two-party systems everywhere, in every country, are usually a significant barrier to any solution to this common problem. So, unfortunately, it does come down to the less worst candidate to support.
Now I appreciate that you do not agree, and you are not alone. I can think of Chris Hedges (Truthdig) and Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) who also do not agree with me. I am not disagreeing with what, for example, Hedges says about Nader. What I am saying in real terms the political arithmetic, the numbers, can some weight. Consider the 1992 Presidential election in which Ross Perot received 18.8% of the total vote (no electoral college votes apparently), which Clinton won with 43% of the vote (less than an absolute majority,the threshold level in run voting) and 370 electoral college votes out of a total of 538. Now four elections later the Reform Party is no more.
What I am saying here is that third party candidates either go down the plug hole of history like Perot, or effectively siphon off votes that may have made a critical difference, even if they persist like Ralph Nader. The key to getting a third party presence is, I suppose, to get representation in the House or the Senate, and that is where Nader should be focusing his attention. Then you start to get a position, such as in Canada and the UK, where third parties have a presence, admittedly in parliamentary, not a presidential system.
I don’t know. Nader has done more for this country and world than any American carreer politician. If he says that the Congress is so corrupt with money these days, that the fix must start at the top, I am inclined to believe him. He has been effective working with Congress for decades, and I think he knows what he is saying by telling us it is now swarming with lobbyists.
When I think what he has helped push for as a private citizen, with people who also believe in the same things, the Freedom of Information Act, EPA, OSHA, cheap AIDS drugs for the India crisis, I just know he could leverage the presidency to help us.
My whole point is that the presidency was never supposed to be a two party system. It was never decided to be so by the people. The corrupt parties in power took it over, and try to make people believe it is law. The media pretends it is by not mentioning or comparing the other candidates. It is not. If it was a two party system, we would not have “third party” candidates. In this whole land, we are limited to the lesser of two evils, that promise no real deviation from the imperialist, lobbyist control plan. Limiting the presidency to the lesser of two evils here is unconstitutional, and against all the principals we claim in America. To stifle the presidential debate conversation to secret agreements between what the Democarats and Republicans believe we should discuss is so anti-American I guess it’s hard to explain.
Congresspeople represent a district, and that is fine. I think Nader is president quality though, and his support and influence is national, and it makes sense for him to run as president.
He has a duty to run, to try to wake people up from this lesser of two evils hogwash. He owes it to the world to give us a popular alternative to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which Obama and McCain offer little deviation from. They are both advised by the Brzezinski family, who promote American hegomony over Eurasia, with Afghanistan as key, with an Africa buffer coming soon, and control of Russia and China as keys. Obama’s the new face for the war and McCain’s the old one. Some of us want a president who is unequivically against imperial occupation, and we have a right to have a candidate that can debate for us. We followed all the laws and got him on 45 ballots, and he represents millions of people, even with the media blacking him out. He deserves to debate.
Some Americans have no interest in “The Grand Chessboard” or “The New Great Game”, which both Obama and McCain obviously want to play. There are other options for America and the world, and they deserve to be heard.
Nobody deserves your vote implicately, not even Nader. It is presumptious and undemocratic to think if my other options didn’t exist, I would be forced to vote for one of the two “main ones”. Whether Nader “siphons” off votes from another candidate is irrelevant. That’s what an election is, choosing who represents you best. I could say Obama “siphons” off Nader’s votes by running I guess, sure, but that doesn’t make sense either. I could win any race by limiting who can compete, I guess.
What an election is, and should be, are two different questions. For example, elections should be a measure of public opinion. At the same time they should be both accurate and representative of the plurality of opinion.
Congress, as we observe (and not just Congress) falls significantly short of this ideal objective. As far as I know, American public opinion was and is strongly in favor of a national health system. Such socialist ideas are very bad. Contra wise socialism for the very, very, very rich is good. It is Sampson holding up the temple of capitalism in the face of the Philistines.
You have it exactly, who can compete is limited. Still in retrospect, even though his election was shonky (via Mayor Daly in Chicago), don’t you think that it was better that Kennedy rather than Nixon won in 1960? On one hand there is the increasing involvement in Vietnam and on the other the Cuban Missile Crisis. Whatever way that is argued, the point is who won was important.
I think that Nader is good on a lot of issues, especially in relation to the bailout and the financial crisis which he foresaw, but the electoral reality is that he has no chance. I think it is great you support Nader, and I can see why. One further reason for mentioning Kennedy, people would put proposals to him, and he would say is the time right. His speech at American University in Washington in 1963 was a use of the bully pulpit of the presidency with a remarkable effect in the Soviet Union.
Why would Obama be better than McCain? For Americans, because he is more likely to restore the Constitution, and for all of us because as he had demonstrated he is likely to be thorough, open and measured in his decision making, and be responsive to the opinion of others. For example, conservative Chancellor Merkel is somewhat aggrieved at the American financial institutional practice given the implications for the global economy since Germany undertook the financing of reunification without causing potential financial chaos.
Oops: Shonky is informal Australian and New Zealand language ie slang. “Shonky : dubious, underhanded. E.g. a shonky practice, shonky business etc.” A word that does not exist in American dictionaries of English.
Being kind of sort of slightly less evil is not good enough for me. It may be for you. I still think you are asking me to choose between a hothead or a scam artist. I accept neither, and legally, none of us do. Actually, Nader has both a statistical and popular chance to win. He is on enough ballots to win the electoral college statistically. He supports policies most Americans support, that Obama and McCain won’t touch, such as ending the Patriot Act, FISA anti-civil rights legislation (that Obama voted for after getting crazy Verizon money), a balanced approach between Israel and Palestine, etc. If he doesn’t win, I think it’s just fear and ignorance at this point. He’s done almost all he can to give us a chance for these things neither “opposing” candidates offer.
I meant legally, none of us have to accept these two.
We will have to see how that goes then James.
Yeah. I know it’s a long shot. I don’t think you guys know Obama that well though.
As the democratic chief imperialist strategist, Brzezinski, who gave Obama the boost over Clinton last year put it, the war needs a new face. Obama understands that. For all our sakes, I hope you don’t get your wish.
Good observation James.
Your compatriot, Kim at Larvatus Prodeo, also lacks enthusiasm for BO.