Progressive Ponderings: Who is to blame?
Can the Bush/Paulson theft motivate us enough to act?
by Joe Mayer
"Wall Street put a gun to the head of the politicians and said, `give us the money – right now – or take the blame for whatever follows'." This statement from William Greider's essay entitled "Goldman Sachs Socialism" (The Nation, Sept. 08) neatly summarizes the Bush administration's political tactic since 9/11. They control the "bully pulpit" and use it to beat all opposition into submission. The results have been disastrous for both democracy and U.S. citizens – the Patriot Act, Iraq War, a secret Cheney energy policy, secrecy, domestic surveillance, continued Iraq funding for occupation, blame for "not supporting the troops, and now blame for the economic mess they created.
Since the 2006 elections and the democratic majority in Congress, Bush has successfully continued to use this tactic of inspiring fear and assessing blame. Democrats spend a good deal of time posturing, criticizing, proposing – just as they are doing this week – and then they give in. Will it happen today or tomorrow?
It's amazing that just a short time ago Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Bernanke, and McCain were assuring us that our economy was strong. Then Bears Stearns and a few other cracks that developed were called a few bad apples, but the overall financial system remained strong and growing. Then Fannie and Freddie faltered. Finally, as the election drew nearer, Paulson's own pocket was picked as Goldman Sachs, provider of personal millions when he was CEO, decided it needed some regulatory protection and sought legitimate bank status. Now we, the American taxpayers, are told we need the expertise of Paulson and others to save ourselves by first saving the corrupt system they designed and vigorously maintained.
Would a sworn government official devise such a scheme for personal benefit or to promote a political ideology that favored a few at the expense of the majority?
Before answering that, think of all the Bush appointments – cabinet officials, undersecretaries, ambassadors, including Bolton at the UN. All have been appointed, not to carry out the mandates of that particular office, but to pursue and promote a neo-conservative agenda. Paulson is carrying through on his ideology as expected. This is a system we twice elected. And, and, if you fight against it you are unpatriotic.
It's easy to be angry with the administration and Congress and politicians in general. But who put them there (with a little help from vote shenanigans and a precedent-setting Supreme Court)? How can a Bush clone – McSame – be polling as well as he is? Who's giving him all that money? Who is not calling him out on his deregulatory history, his 1980's Savings and Loan connections, his flip-flop on just about every issue on which he earned his "maverick" or "straight talk" reputation?
The money is coming from your neighbor, from the local Chamber of Commerce, from the corporations and the wealthy who have never believed in democracy. The "soft" treatment comes from a media owned by the corporate world and serves only the corporate agenda.
Individual voters must be reached. Voters consistently, and often unknowingly, vote against their own self-interests and inner-beliefs. They vote their externally propagated fears. Can this Bush/Paulson theft motivate us enough to act?
by Joe Mayer
"Wall Street put a gun to the head of the politicians and said, `give us the money – right now – or take the blame for whatever follows'." This statement from William Greider's essay entitled "Goldman Sachs Socialism" (The Nation, Sept. 08) neatly summarizes the Bush administration's political tactic since 9/11. They control the "bully pulpit" and use it to beat all opposition into submission. The results have been disastrous for both democracy and U.S. citizens – the Patriot Act, Iraq War, a secret Cheney energy policy, secrecy, domestic surveillance, continued Iraq funding for occupation, blame for "not supporting the troops, and now blame for the economic mess they created.
Since the 2006 elections and the democratic majority in Congress, Bush has successfully continued to use this tactic of inspiring fear and assessing blame. Democrats spend a good deal of time posturing, criticizing, proposing – just as they are doing this week – and then they give in. Will it happen today or tomorrow?
It's amazing that just a short time ago Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Bernanke, and McCain were assuring us that our economy was strong. Then Bears Stearns and a few other cracks that developed were called a few bad apples, but the overall financial system remained strong and growing. Then Fannie and Freddie faltered. Finally, as the election drew nearer, Paulson's own pocket was picked as Goldman Sachs, provider of personal millions when he was CEO, decided it needed some regulatory protection and sought legitimate bank status. Now we, the American taxpayers, are told we need the expertise of Paulson and others to save ourselves by first saving the corrupt system they designed and vigorously maintained.
Would a sworn government official devise such a scheme for personal benefit or to promote a political ideology that favored a few at the expense of the majority?
Before answering that, think of all the Bush appointments – cabinet officials, undersecretaries, ambassadors, including Bolton at the UN. All have been appointed, not to carry out the mandates of that particular office, but to pursue and promote a neo-conservative agenda. Paulson is carrying through on his ideology as expected. This is a system we twice elected. And, and, if you fight against it you are unpatriotic.
It's easy to be angry with the administration and Congress and politicians in general. But who put them there (with a little help from vote shenanigans and a precedent-setting Supreme Court)? How can a Bush clone – McSame – be polling as well as he is? Who's giving him all that money? Who is not calling him out on his deregulatory history, his 1980's Savings and Loan connections, his flip-flop on just about every issue on which he earned his "maverick" or "straight talk" reputation?
The money is coming from your neighbor, from the local Chamber of Commerce, from the corporations and the wealthy who have never believed in democracy. The "soft" treatment comes from a media owned by the corporate world and serves only the corporate agenda.
Individual voters must be reached. Voters consistently, and often unknowingly, vote against their own self-interests and inner-beliefs. They vote their externally propagated fears. Can this Bush/Paulson theft motivate us enough to act?
Labels: John McCain, Wall Street
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home