You realize - Of Course - that if our Representatives represent us there will be no bailout

[ThomWV]

Repeatedly in interviews it is disclosed that phone calls coming into Representative's Offices are running (I've heard numbers between 35:1 and 200:1) against the bailout. Got that? Somewhere between 0.5 and 3.0% of the population supports the bailout and the rest of us don't. So what is a Representative to do? Just who's interest is being represented here? There is a reason Representatives are elected by the popular vote - because they are suppose to do as we would do.

How can your, or my, or anyone's Representative vote for a bill which the vast majority of those who he or she represents are dead set against it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. We elect them but Wall St pays their bills.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. I'm lucky that my Congressman hasn't taken a dime from big corporate interests and

I've contacted his office telling him not to trust Paulson and this has to be looked at from square one. I don't know how he'll vote but I do know his vote won't be influenced by big biz.

[pnwmom]

2. Does that mean we're all in favor of falling into a depression instead?

If we're all in a state of denial, does that mean Congress has to be, too?

[shadowknows69]

4. Not the point

They are supposed to represent us and do our bidding. Right or wrong. No one gave their offices the power or privledge to think for us.

[onenote]

31. i don't think you understand the concept of a representative democracy

You state that "no one gave their offices the power or privilege to think for us." In fact, that is exactly what we, as a people, have done. If the founders of the nation wanted a pure or "direct" democracy, in which every decision was put to a plebiscite, they could have/would have created one. But they didn't. They created a representative democracy in which elected officials are expected to act in people's interest but not as mere surrogates.

The people, of course, retain the ultimate authority to elect different representatives.

[shadowknows69]

39. Maybe so when there was no such thing as mass communication

But there is no excuse today for a representative not to have nearly real time feedback from their constituents. According to the poll numbers and the volume of calls against the bailout they have ADMITTED GETTING, they are not representing us well.

[Romulox]

5. So we're a democracy until "We the People," make the WRONG decision, huh?

And the same visionaries who you put your trust in to implement their bizarre reverse Robin Hood scheme are the exact same people who told us that the Iraq war would pay for itself and we would be greeted in the streets with flowers...:silly:

[MNDemNY]

7. We are not a "democracy", thankfully, we are a representative republic.

[Romulox]

16. So a trick of semantics frees our so-called "representatives" to defy the will of the people?

:puke:

[shadowknows69]

17. See how easy that was

Still don't see much "representin" goin on.

[pnwmom]

33. It's not a semantic trick. We have never had a direct democracy. We choose

people to REPRESENT us, to vote on issues on our behalf.

[shadowknows69]

40. And they are not representing the majority opinion

Which makes them traitors to their party and democracy itself.

[Mariana]

45. Then they can and should be thrown the hell out of office.

[girl gone mad]

75. I'm fairly certain that most of them will be.

The outrage on this one is off the charts.

[closeupready]

95. Yep. I'm waiting to see how my reps vote (I've told them to vote no) and

I will take that into consideration when deciding how to cast future votes.

[pnwmom]

47. So you're saying that Obama is a traitor? And that you know more about

the details of the economic crisis and possible solutions than he does?

Because he was just on Face the Nation saying that the plan that is at hand has all the elements that he called for.

[shadowknows69]

63. I have not heard concrete reasoning from anyone

Why we can't do this in a longer time frame? We're being bullied and bamboozled again by a thug of an administration and it's willing accomplices in congress on both sides of the aisle. Maybe the American people or I don't know enough about the crisis, but what about the long list of renowned economists that wrote Pelosi saying she should oppose it?

[MNDemNY]

69. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7231823

[shadowknows69]

71. Oh you mean Warren that bought up a bunch of the shitty debt

on the promise that the bailout would go through? Next?

[MNDemNY]

72. You will have to get over your "angry taxpayer" routine, before you

can begin to comprehend.

[MNDemNY]

59. Do you REALLY want this country governed by the majority opinion of the moment??

If it were, we would NOT have prepared for WWII, we would NOT have social security, we would NOT have ended segregation, women would NOT have the vote....need I go on????The shadow knows very little.

[Two Americas]

82. you cannot be serious

So we have a choice - "our" set of authoritarian leaders, who "share our values" whatever in the hell that means, imposing things on us for our own good, or their "their" set of aristocratic leaders, who "share their values, imposing things on us for our own good.

By the way, the public DID come to support Abolition, Labor rights, universal suffrage, Social Security, the need to fight fascism, and Civil Rights.

The leaders of those movements had faith in the people, worked for years to communicate their message in the belief that if people could hear it and understand it they would support it. They were right. Without that there would never have been any social progress. Yet you sweep that all away, and rewrite history, and make an argument defending and praising authoritarianism and aristocracy. You have just invalidated and denied every single traditional principle and ideal of the Democratic party and the political left, civil rights, the Labor movement, and democracy itself. You are arguing against the core principles upon which the country was founded. Toss the Declaration of Independence, the Rights of Man, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the principles of self-government and limited governmental power, and the moral authority upon which the legitimacy of our government rests - you have denied it all and declared your opposition to it all, as clear as can be.

It is no mystery that we are paralyzed and confused, divided and conquered, and can present no serious opposition to a vicious and extreme right wing power.

And we wonder why the people are disgusted, reject Democrats, and are vulnerable to the appeals of the Republican party?

[pnwmom]

88. I hope you're not serious. Do you think GLBT rights should be subject to the

will of a biased public? Yes, that is the current situation -- but don't you think it is reprehensible that, by a majority vote, we can deny full civil rights to a portion of the population?

Yes, the public did "come to support" those changes you listed, but not till years or decades after a representative government passed laws that wouldn't have been passed by an initial majority vote of the populace. Also, judges frequently had to overturn laws that DID have the backing of the majority of the people and its representatives.

To take a modern example: judges in Massachusetts were the "anti-Democrats" who caused discriminatory (but very popular) marriage laws to be overturned. And in California, at the time judges made that same decision, the majority of the populace opposed it. But since then, enough have changed their minds that there is a good chance that a new discriminatory bill will be rejected next month. This change only occurred BECAUSE people got used to the law AFTER it was put into place.

[Two Americas]

98. red herring and more fear fear fear

Of course not. But this is a nonsensical argument. Because mob rule needs to be guarded against in one set of conditions - the tyranny of the majority and the danger that could represent to individual liberty - that does not mean that public opinion should be ignored in all cases.

Let's go with your analogy. Whose individual liberty is threatened by the public's rejection of the bailout? Now THERE is a question we should be asking. Who is the "oppressed" group? I will tell you who. The wealthy and powerful, the privileged.

The freedom of the few to prey on the many is the complete opposite principle as the freedom of the individual from being persecuted by the many.

Confusing those two is the greatest threat to the party, and to the people and to democracy, that can be imagined. The few among us - 10% maybe? but casting a very big shadow by bullying and dominating - pushing this doctrine are undermining and crippling the party, IMHO.

You are using the same argument Stephen Douglass use in the 1850's to defend the expansion of slavery. He called it the "sacred principle of self-determination" - that slave owners should not be denied the right to bring their slaves into the new territories. Lincoln and others argued that the principle was true, but was misapplied because one person's self-determination ends when it denies self-determination for others. The slaves were, of course, opposed to the Douglass doctrine and so were the settlers in the Nebraska territory.

Today the people are opposed to the tyranny of the few, the rule of the market, as were the opponents of slavery opposed to the tyranny of the slave holders. You apply the principle here that applies to the struggles of GLBT people, and it is seriously misapplied in this case as well.

The rights of the wealthy and privileged to prey in the rest of us is not a right we need to respect, and is in fact the exact opposite of the situation you are trying to apply it to.

The majority is not always right, but nether is the minority. It is - by the way - a minority of people who seek to oppress GLBT people and suppress their rights, so your analogy falls apart there, as well. The fact that a homophobic minority is able through propaganda and fear, to drive a majority into their camp, does not change the fact that a minority is trying to force its will on the majority. But that is exactly what you seek to do. The difference is this - you take opposite positions on the two issues. There is no principle involved there, it is merely what you want. In one case you do nit like a minority driving the majority because it hurts you, in the other case you try to impose a minority view on us because it helps you.

That is precisely the self-serving hypocrisy and moral depravity found too often on the Democratic party, and is the main reason that the public rejects the party to the extent that it does.

[pnwmom]

105. In my state, as in many states, a majority of people have voted against

gay marriage. You are deluding yourself about the homophobic minority. It's still a majority overall.

And unlike you, I'm not going to accuse Barack Obama -- who supports the plan as rewritten -- of "self-serving hypocrisy and moral depravity."

[Two Americas]

108. the dreaded loyalty test!!

Maybe we need to review the tactics that people are using to promote this point of view again.

The pro-market pro-bailout people are using several different approaches...

The Sales Pitch

Dense, impenetrable thickets of verbiage are thrown up that sound so esoteric and academic and technical, that everyone wanders away convinced that this is just all over their head and they will never understand economics. For any one who has been to one of those dog and pony shows where some broker tries to con you into investing in his "financial products," this approach will be very familiar. "Bore them to death until they give up and sign on the dotted line" seems to be the approach. Since I obviously don't know anything about this, best to trust the experts. Try not to bring up the fact that they stand to make a lot of money of they can get us to roll over for them.

Threat Level Red!!!

This was once known as "fear! fear! fear!" but it is now color coded to maximize the anxiety effect. The idea here is that if we don't give the fat cats everything they want, they will make sure we are all homeless, sleeping under a mushroom cloud, with nothing to eat but yellow cake.

The Preemptive Attack

Long before anyone has had a chance to post anything critical of the bail out, or even think about it, we have dozens of posts like this: "I am sick and tired of these nut case socialists saying "let it fall" or fantasizing about their glorious revolution! They are actually hoping for a depression to further their petty little personal agendas of revolution and communism, with blood and mayhem. All rational people should reject anyone criticizing the bailout!"

Cooler Heads Must Prevail

This is a variation of the preemptive attack. "Now some people will get all upset about this, but we need to all calm down and not go into panic mode or get too emotional about this." Of course, that pisses off everyone, so it is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a particularly destructive and malicious approach though, because it places the blame on the victim, as though it is people's reactions to perpetrations that are the problem, not the perpetration itself. "If we all can just accept being robbed without getting upset, then it won't really be a crime" seems to be the "logic" there. "could you please stop bleeding and moaning after I stab you? That is only making things worse, and it implies that I have done something wrong, which is not fair to me."

The Dreaded Loyalty Test

"Our revered and beloved Democratic party leaders have, in their great wisdom, have caved in and rolled over and are acting like demoralized cowards, crawling and cringing to the right wingers. We must do the same, in order to be loyal and to support them. What, do you want the Republicans to win?" Every time a Democratic politician gives in to the right wing, or even says any little thing that is moderate, wishy washy, compromising, tentative or weak, there is a chorus of people yelling "That's it! Yes! Moderate, wishy washy, compromising, tentative and weak! We have your back! We love you! We will support you no matter what!" Of course, the politicians listen, since we do have a representative democracy, and think "huh, that must be what they want. I guess I will keep giving them more of that." Any questioning of this is met with "whaddya gonna do? Vote for McCain??"

Smear, Smear, Smear

When all else fails, personal attacks, smears and character assassination are next. You are a purist, troll, marxist, comrade, dreamer, socialist, loser, melodramatic, naive, impractical, unrealistic, fringe, far left, radical, ideologue, psycho, nut case, disloyal....

[pnwmom]

109. I'm not the one name-calling here. And I was responding to the specific

issue of the U.S.A. being a representative, rather than a direct democracy. For which I am still grateful to our Founders.

[Two Americas]

112. right here, your words

"And unlike you, I'm not going to accuse Barack Obama..."

What is that?

[pnwmom]

117. I don't know. Is this a quiz? n/t

[Zhade]

92. And they're not representing their constituents.

I mean, fucking DUH?

[Hugin]

19. Well, they should get to 'representing' then.

What part of 97% of the people being against something is being represented?

[iiibbb]

53. Similar polling says that the same doesn't want another depression too...

The representatives are under a Damocles sword.

[coalition_unwilling]

90. Small point, but I think that would be a "Damocletian Sword" or "under

a Sword of Damocles"

[Two Americas]

96. right

They don't want terrorists coming to get them, either. That is why they supported the administration.

What is missing from this picture? Leadership. We have no leadership. No amount of "loyalty" or "support" will change that - in fact, it prevents that from changing.

The people could have been led to overthrowing once and for all the libertarian free market Reaganomics idiocy. Instead, we try to drive them, in fear, back into the clutches of the predators, into the depraved and doomed world of Reaganomics.

Future generations will condemn us for this, and curse our names, and they should.

[prayin4rain]

42. That is what a democracy is and there has been nothing REPRESENTATIVE about it. n/t

[SOS]

44. We were founded as a representative republic

Today we have evolved into what FDR warned against (and what Mussolini applauded):

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
- Franklin Roosevelt

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini

[malaise]

6. You sound like the Jamaican middle class

Most of them thought IMF policies would be great because they supposedly would protect their interests. When reality hit them with deregulation, divestment and devaluation, as the dollar moved from J1.35 - US$1.00 to J$71 to $US1.00, they have a very different view.

There are several alternatives to IMF policies. This will be a disaster worse than the present situation.

[Two Americas]

106. I hear the echo

I can remember hearing all of these arguments from the liberal aristocracy and upper class in Latin America 40 years ago. Made my hair stand on end. Now we have a class of people just like that, and they are making the same arguments word-for-word. As most of us sink into servitude and poverty, we have a class of privileged and gentrified neo-liberals who have become the strongest defenders of the ruling class of any other group, while pretending to be "against" this that or the other and while "caring" more about us peons, of course. "Don't get me wrong I agree with you BUT..." is the hallmark phrase. There is much suffering for many people contained in that little word "but."

I can remember hearing people of privilege from Guatemala and Mexico having these long sincere chats with me back them - "oh yes the poverty is really terrible, and it does break my heart, but what can we do. I don't agree with it, and we try to do the little things we can to make things better. But is communism really the answer? Or is this human nature we are dealing with?"

[Hugin]

15. Please explain exactly how this bailout will prevent that from happening.

HOW is it going to prevent a Depression?

or even a Recession for that matter.

[texan4obama]

28. Bailout was necessary - here's why

Lehman Brother – bankruptcy
Washington Mutual (WaMu) - bankruptcy
Bear Stearns - Government Bailout
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Government Bailout
American International Group (AIG) – Government Bailout
Merrill Lynch – Bank of America Buyout
Money Market Funds - Government stepped in to stabilize to prevent run on banks

If the government does not step in and stabilize the financial market, many working class people will be hit hard by a collapse of the financial market. Many of the people on DU complaining about this bailout plan, will be fighting to keep their jobs and homes, if the government does nothing.

Here's why:
The key underlying issue in this "Financial Crisis" is that lending has shutdown, or loans can only be had at ridiculously high interest rates. There is a domino affect on the economy associated with this "Crisis" that impacts the average Joe Citizen:

Credit concerns means higher interest rates to banks and lending institutions, thus banks/lenders pay more for the money they borrow and lend to Companies and Joe Citizen.

Banks charge Companies a higher interest rate, which means:
* Companies borrow less and end up in a cash flow crunch (shortage of money to cover day-to-day expenses, less investment for future growth, squeeze on profits due to higher cost of borrowed money)
* In a tight market, Companies cut cost, which usually means delayed purchases and layoffs

Banks charge Joe Citizen a higher interest rate, which means:
* Harder to get a home loan, and interest rates make Home and Car loans less affordable for Joe Citizen
* Increased credit card rates put Joe Citizen in a bind to make anything other than interest payments on credit card debt
* Joe Citizen stops buying stuff (Cars, Homes, new widgets on credit cards), causing the profits of Companies that sell cars, homes and widgets to drop
* Joe Citizen gets laid off because profits of Companies that sell cars, homes and widgets have dropped
* Joe Citizen dips into 401K retirement savings (which has dropped significantly in value) to pay his bills while looking for another job
* Joe Citizen loses his home causing a continued downward spiral of the housing market and economy

I don't like the idea of bailing out the people that have caused this mess, but I believe an infusion of cash to the financial market (with oversight on how the money is spent) is needed to avoid a worst calamity.

[pnwmom]

34. Thanks for the informative post, texan4obama.

And welcome to DU!

[Hugin]

41. Then why isn't the money loaned directly to this so called Joe Citizen?

Instead of laundering it through the banks?

[lynettebro440]

43. If I remember correctly

we paid really high interest rates the last real recession we had. Interest rates were 17% and you felt lucky if you got that? Why can't we just start charging high interest again? I don't understand that part at all. They are trying no other solutions other then bailing out? There are other ways....maybe these big suck holes that have failed has all been because they were ripped off by a few...namely current people who are borrowing...bush..paulson ect. This just smells really bad, maybe needed but smells really, really bad.

[sendero]

55. BULLSHIT..

.... lending has been shutdown to FORCE the bailout.

The markets will eventually crash anyway, now at even greater expense to the taxpayer.

[greyghost]

84. That 's EXACTLY what's happening.

[western mass]

57. Gee, more scary stories from Wall St....

Guess who's spreading them? You guessed it, the same people and their paid mouthpieces who stand to benefit from a massive taxpayer handout.

The crisis is purely hypothetical. It's not that the banks don't have money to lend, it's that they might not have the CONFIDENCE to lend as much as they should. Wall St is essentially blackmailing the American people with the threat of slowing down lending unless they get a massive handout.

It's just the latest chapter of the corporate crime wave that's defined the last 8 years.

[Not the Only One]

62. Then give the $700B to the American worker

The stock market is a big casino. Since when is it my responsibility to make whole the gambler who loses his shirt at the card table-- ESPECIALLY a gambler who had millions of dollars going in?

These people don't have an unalienable right to be filthy rich.

[Two Americas]

85. sure that is the promise

That is what Reagan promised us. That is what we have been told. The market rules.

Help the fat cats, given them complete power over our lives, or else, and we are supposed to believe that it will trickle down.

We faced this in the 30's, and we overcame it by taking the exact opposite approach, the exact opposite understanding of the economy, to the one you are trying to force on us.

There were people back them who said the same thing you are saying. They were wrong and they didn't prevail. I fear that today people selling this will prevail. That will condemn future generations to servitude, and a permanent depression for most of us.

The people, in their wisdom, are rejecting this snake oil. We have waited a long tome for that to happen, and now when that day has finally arrived, our "friends" are tying our hands, attacking us, and fighting ferociously for the other side.

[coalition_unwilling]

91. It's not really even a "Bailout" plan except maybe in the

narrowest sense of the term. Better to think of it as an "Economic Stabilization" plan, one that FDR would have been behind 100% (at least the Pelosi-Reid-Dodd iteration currently up to bat).

[WestWingEmpty]

114. Kind of reminds me of

If we don't go into Iraq they will attack us with nuclear weapons within 6 months.
We will be greeted as liberators.
They have WMD's and plan on using them.
They are helping Al Queda.

What else am I missing?

[Two Americas]

119. the pattern

Create a crisis, get everyone in a panic, and then shove something on us that makes thing infinitely worse but coincidentally moves massive amounts of money from the working people into the hands of the few.

The bankruptcy bill, IWR, NCLB, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, FISA, privatizing Social Security...

I know I have missed several dozen more.

All the same pattern. But this time is different.

[avaistheone1]

30. This bailout may help us take us into depression not save us from it

according to the Congressional Budget Office chief.

[Two Americas]

110. a permanent depression

There are things worse than a Great Depression. We would have a fighting chance to overcome a Great Depression. Much of the world's population lives under a condition of permanent depression, with nothing better to compare that to.

A permanent depression, with all of us as a desperate and hopeless underclass - does anyone here still doubt that this is the goal of the people we are rolling over for?

[MadHound]

35. The trouble is that this bailout is going to bring about an economic crisis much worse

A depression we can recover from. However this bailout insures two things: First, our US Treasury bonds, the instrument of our debt, the instrument that is currently funding the government, are going to be downgraded, officially. Some commercial houses already started doing this privately, now it is going to become official, worldwide, and we will not be able to borrow any money. All of our taxpayer revenue will have to go to servicing our eleven trillion dollar debt, with no other money for anything, Social Security payments, infrastructure, not a damn thing.

Secondly, this sort of large injection of cash is going to devalue the dollar, leading to high, if not hyper inflation. Can you say Depression era Germany?

This is basic economics, basics that have been ignored. Now we're going to pay the piper, and we'll all be wishing that we had chosen a depression instead.

[sendero]

52. The depression ..

... is coming, bailout or not. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

[magellan]

87. A bailout won't stop that from happening. n/t

[WestWingEmpty]

113. So wait a minute.

You are trusting the opinion of the people in charge that if they do nothing there will be a depression? These are the same people that didn't see this mess comming. If anything go look up those like Dennis that were warning about this for a long time. See what they think.

[shadowknows69]

3. And once again they won't listen to us and do it anyway

Because they know better what's better for us. Right?

[stray cat]

13. Many times when government acts against the people it can be good ie desegregation

Also, given that over 40% of people think Palin is qualified to be president do you want to hand your future to your neighbors (particularly those often refered to as freepers who have an equal vote to each of us?). A poll would not have given women the right to vote, desegregation or at least many equal rights independent of sexual preverence>

[shadowknows69]

14. Valid points but I'd counter with the overwhelming evidence before us

that in matters of finance they certainly don't, as a rule, usually do what's best for We The People.

[stray cat]

20. generally true - although the New Deal, Medicare, Social Security, Disabiltity were all great

[Bluenorthwest]

21. What does this mean?

"at least many equal rights independent of sexual preverence>" ?

[western mass]

58. The bailout is like the Civil Rights movement?

good one.

[napi21]

8. I'm against the bailout, BUT it think it must be done. I'm 65, and

my husband is 66. We live on our SS checks & have a small 401K to pay our RE taxes & cover any emergencies. In the past few weeks I've watched that 401K decline in value! This is NOT only happening to ME! The same thing is happening to millions of other Americans too! We're fortunate that our house is paid for, so if it's value declines, it doesn't immediately harm US. But for the people who have mortgages and the value of their home declines, they get into serious problems. If gov't doesn't do SOMETHING dramatic, EVERY American will be severely hurt, and none of us want that to happen.

[galileoreloaded]

64. I hear you, but the reality of our collective situation is..

is that 401K will be eaten by inflation and real estate prices ave another 20-40% to go. down.
Vote for it, or against. Pick your poison.

[stray cat]

9. Representatives should think and not just be automotons based on a poll

America re-elected Bush do you really trust majority rule when most people don't have a clue - including myself in the sense that I haven't been briefed sufficiently (news and blogs are not necessarily factual or thorough.)

[Romulox]

18. Nope. Representatives should vote the way their CORPORATE PAYMASTERS pay them to! nt

[pnutbutr]

10. most people

have no idea how our monetary system works and nobody in our government has explained it in terms most Americans can understand. If people were aware of the reasons why our representatives are pushing the bailout the results I suspect would be very different.

[Orsino]

97. And most people probably still think of the coming deal as a pure bail-out...

...and will loudly decry it without ever learning much about it.

[Two Americas]

11. how can that be?

Half of the posts here promote it and all of our elected Democratic representatives favor it.

3%....hmmm.

That is about the percentage of the population that will benefit from this. That includes all of our representatives, and quite a few people here it would seem.

Something is seriously wrong, isn't it ThomWV? Seriously wrong.

We wouldn't swallow this coming from Republicans. But we might if it were coming from "Democrats" and if we still believed that the label meant anything. That is food for thought, isn't it?

hmmmmmm

[Hugin]

23. "all of our elected Democratic representatives favor it"

Do you have a reference for this?

[Two Americas]

25. ROFL

Hell I don't know. I am just going by what Pelosi is saying on the radio, which is what the public will go by as well.

They have "bipartisan blah blah and come together and reached agreement" after days of saying that they had the Dems lined up, and that we must pass something.

You tell me. It is too goofy to figure out.

Maybe they don't really support it, but they want the people to think they do? Maybe they don't support it, but they had no choice? Maybe it is some sort of clever rope a dope kind of thing? Or maybe because a few don't, therefore we have a fig leaf or can kid ourselves about this? Or what?

I am not up on whatever the hair-splitting excuses and rationalizations are yet. Just tell me what we are supposed to believe, so I can start parroting the line.

[fasttense]

22. America is no longer a represantive Democracy.

Just like in South Korea when the President forced upon his unwilling voters Mad Cow infected beef from the US, our government no longer reflects the will of the people.

When a country buys off on "free" trade (neoliberal, trickle down, supply side or Chicago school economic policies) and implements tough economic doctrines which hurt the majority of the people, the government has to ignore the electorates' wants in order to fully adapt to these economic theories.

It is like a too strict parent spanking a child until the kid complies. So supposed Democratic Representatives must ignore the angry shouts, screams and cries of their voters in order to put into place what they see as a perfect economic system. The parent like the government justifies it by thinking that in the long run a little bit of pain now will result in vast success later.

The problem is spanking and "free" trade have unintended consequences. For the child it results in aggression and misplaces anger, eventually creating a not so pleasant adult. For the country it results in the destruction of Democracy.

No populous wants to have to pay outrages costs to private firms for water, heat and energy. No one wants to lose their food, shelter, old age pensions, medical or heat subsidies from their government. Yet, these are exactly the things a government must do in order to fully implement the utopian ideal of "free" trade.

"Free" trade works best in a dictatorship that has no responsibility to govern according to the will of the people. "Free" trade always damages or destroys Democracy.

[NoUsername]

24. Taxation without representation.

That's what this is, plain and simple.

I saw an interview with Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) on MSNBC and he said (parahrasing here) that "if we're going to waste $700B, we're at least going to be able to blame Republicans for it." IOW, they don't even remotely give a shit about pissing away $700B of taxpayer's money. The ONLY thing they care about is political cover. They're representing themselves and no one else.

Sherman was asked about the provision whereby the second $350B would have to be approved by Congress. He said that is extremely misleading;. Congress would have to pass a resolution blocking that $350B and then they would have to override a veto by Bush which, of course, would not happen. The whole part about Congress having to approve the second $350B was put in there strictly to make the bill more palatable. It's complete BS.

Sherman also described the bill as "$700B for George Bush in unmarked bills." He was going to vote against it.

[The2ndWheel]

26. "In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1911taylor.html

[SmileyRose]

27. if they represented us there would be no need for a bailout.

the practices that started this pile of manure would have been prosecuted at the start.

[slipslidingaway]

61. Bingo!!! n/t

[L. Coyote]

29. The Bush tax cuts are coming home to roost!

This "crisis" is nothing more than the impact of Bush tax cuts (robbery of the Treasury).
It is that simple, and that is what the Rs are covering for.

Tax breaks need to be tied to stimuli, like investing in business.
With the Junta tax breaks for the rich, excess capital was free to do whatever.
That meant lots of individual investors making individual decision.
The result was predictable, a bubble started building in real estate ......

You know the rest of the story. They got fleeced 5% by realtors every sale,
2% by loan officers, millions paid in interest to bankers, ... and,
after everyone privatized their massive profits, CRASH!!!

Now, they want us to give them the money one more time, in one lump. LOL!
Say no to this last phase in the ROBBERY of the Treasury!

[riverdeep]

32. How is this any different from the Iraq War Resolution?

We protested and marched and called, and they still did it. If there is a difference, it's that even conservatives are against this. The theory that the folks on the Hill are so much smarter than us should have been shot down then.

[Romulox]

36. FISA. nt

[Romulox]

37. NAFTA. nt

[Romulox]

38. "Free trade" with China. nt

[jpgray]

49. The major difference is that this time there is evidence of an actual wolf

In IWR, the case for such was laughably bad. The thing in common between the two situations is that the Bush admin is proposing a completely wrongheaded plan for dealing with the threat. Here at least, we have some objective evidence and expert opinion that the threat exists.

[coalition_unwilling]

93. The Bush-Paulson plan is deader than a doornail. Didn't you

see and smell the defeat on Bush's face when he begged on Thursday night? FDR would approve of the current plan given the calamities we face now and in the days to come.

[jpgray]

46. Posts like these give me the suspicion that many here never read John Stuart Mill

[pnwmom]

48. Are you kidding? I'd be surprised if 10% of us here have read J.S. Mill. n/t

[ThomWV]

78. What about Mill do you find applicable?

I only ask because as far as I remember Mill wasn't much more than a rehash of Richardo, who, as I recall, proved to be off base by just a bit himself. Just one notch removed from a Luddite if I remember correctly.

[jpgray]

79. Specifically, blind adherence to prevailing opinion and feeling can harm a society overall

For example, I'm quite happy that, in the past, majority views on mixed marriages or segregation did not entirely govern our representatives in Congress. It is not de facto dereliction of duty when a representative goes against the majority view. Is the bailout in the public interest overall? To be honest, I don't know if -this- bailout is, but to say categorically that representatives must obey immediate public opinion in all cases is not a good standard of judgment. Another good example is the stable majority in favor of war with Iraq in 2002.

[pnwmom]

89. I agree. And GLBT rights is the current example. Should the civil rights of

one segment of the population be subject to a majority vote by people who are voting based on ignorance, bias, or religious belief?

[blues90]

50. Think midterms 2006

The dems ran on ending the Iraq occupation , this was their plan and promise.

What happened, not a damn thing, they instead funded the war and gave this admin everything they wanted.

So think about that and all the possible reasons behind it.

It shows me both parties are owned and controlled by the corporations and this is not my own theory it is fact.

If Pelosi took impeachment off the table then ask using common sense why.

There is really something very wrong with this picture and it stinks as bad as stink can get.

[Raksha]

83. I agree, and I think this also ties into the issue of election fraud.

For YEARS we've been asking ourselves that question: If the Dems know all about election fraud, why have they consistently refused to do anything meaningful about it? Why would they want to be Jim Crow'd, caged and Diebolded out of an electoral victory???

I think what we're seeing right now is the answer. The individual candidate who gets cheated will be furious as all hell and may demand a recount, start a lawsuit or whatever, but the Democratic Party itself does nothing...over and over again!

I'm beginning to think this is the reason they do nothing: The Dems are really every bit as paternalistic as the Repukes, but they don't want us to know it. They know there will be times when "the elite" will have to prevail over their peon constituents because after all, "they know what's best for us."

They tolerate election fraud because they don't REALLY want us to have the power to throw the bums out. They only want us to think we do.

[blues90]

120. I agree .

I also feel or just to add to what you have expressed here. That once any dem or repub has held their seat for 30 years they are in the big bubble club and have lost touch with the real world and they don't intend to speak out and risk their life time career at any cost to themselves. They do not represent you or me or the people , they represent the corporations and the war machine and the lobby's.

[bedazzled]

51. i think the "haves" want the bailout and the "have nots" don't

if you have assets to protect, you're for bailing
out these banks.

if you don't, you're not.

the democrats have allowed the problem to be laid
in their lap, they've bought the problem, and will
now be responsible for its conclusion.

an absolutely brilliant way for the thugs to handle
it. we'll be blamed no matter what happens even
though they've created the problem. and the dems
went for it hook line and sinker.

[MNDemNY]

60. Unfortunately, the "asset" we need to protect, in this case, is the entirety of our lending system.

The consequences are immediate for even the "have-nots"

[shadowknows69]

65. So how are the lending institutions going to survive

if they stop lending? What guarantee is there that they'll start again after the bailout? Is this in the language? Are there any guarantees this will fix the problem?

[MNDemNY]

67. No guaranties.

except that if credit gets any tighter, the economy will spiral into depression.

[Greyhound]

66. It is not an asset, but a liability. It is an asset to those that own the system,

and the system is designed to extract our product to our detriment and for their profits.

[MNDemNY]

68. The asset is the peoples ability to make purchases, and their employers ability to make payroll .

[Greyhound]

76. Again, not an asset. There is an overall loss and no sale value, a liability. n/t

[MNDemNY]

77. This is not an exercise in ledger entries.

[Greyhound]

80. There is no value to this system, there should be no profit in controlling our currency,

it is a function of the government, or rather, is supposed to be. It only benefits those people that have imposed it on us.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing...
:shrug:

[EFerrari]

70. That's the carrot. My family depends on credit to float the business.

But, is there any guarantee this bill will actually do that? Someone said yesterday that we're going to fund our own foreclosures. :shrug:

[MNDemNY]

73. I, too, am skeptical, however Warren Buffetts statements go the furthest to convince me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7231823

[Two Americas]

81. that is right

This has nothing to do with Republican versus Democrat, nothing to so with liberal versus conservative. That is why there is so much confusion. It is all a lie, and that has come into clear view over the last few days. If people can't see that now, I don't know what it would take.

The haves versus the have-nots IS the political right versus the political left. That is what politics is about. You can slap an "organic" or "green" or "choice" label on free-market libertarianism and individualism and aristocratic rule by the "winners," but all that does is mislead people. Those arguing on behalf of the haves are a very small percentage of the population, but they dominate the discussion, and as we have seen use bullying to win. No one has been able to defend this bailout without resorting to bullying in one form or another.

We have heard every single right wing theme - dressed up in "liberal" or "progressive" clothing - used here to promote this massive heist, this unthinkable surrender of the people's freedoms and rights.

We are being forced to side with the "liberal" haves versus the "conservative" haves, to see those as the only two choices and to see these choices as the sum total of all political thought and action. we are being forced to see half of our neighbors and fellow citizens as the enemy because they prefer one set of bullies over the set of bullies we are dominated and controlled by.

[greyghost]

86. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! You summed it up beautifully.

[greyghost]

100. Welcome to John Edward's two Americas, this is the beginning

of a battle between the haves and the have nots.

[dysfunctional press]

54. we don't elect representatives to make decisions based on calls to their office.

we elect them to use their best judgement to make decisions for us. i'm guessing that a pretty good share of the people calling have no idea what the ramifications of either doing something or doing nothing would be.
we trust our reps to make the decisions based on the facts of the situation- not to bend to knee-jerk public outrage by people who don't have all the information necessary to make a reasoned decision.

[greyghost]

101. You better take your own advice and question all.

[dysfunctional press]

116. something has to be done, and hopefully our reps will vote with common sense rather than emotion.

nt

[greyghost]

118. Actually, they'll vote exactly how their corporate masters instruct them too.

The economy will fail irregardless, the bailout simply makes the hole deeper.

[Lionus]

56. When Is A Bailout Not A Bailout?

Saturday was a rough day in the Blogging Business.. Congressional Members and Staffers were on Overtime, and in Over-Drive. News organizations and financial news networks had ears or drinking glass pressed up against the doors of meeting rooms, Henry Paulson was getting all of the respect previously accorded to the Late Pat Paulson, and other than commenting on non-stories relating to who could spin the best seven second sound bite out of the Presidential Debate...it was for all practical purposes, the slowest news day of the entire election cycle.

No battleground states changed their tentative allegiances, and it didn’t matter what you had previously predicted to be the future of Wachovia, Downey Savings & Loan or National City Corporation. All of that would be changing, anyway...based upon what the reporters were hearing coming through the glasses they had pressed up against the walls of the Congress.

One of the few minor stories even worth any note, was why Johnny McNuisance felt the need to hang out in his Arlington, VA campaign office, calling Senators and Congressman, almost all of whom had suggested that perhaps he form his own Commission, and hold its inaugural meeting...somewhere else.

Then the NY Times main story hit the wire for its Sunday Edition...and at least one of Johnny Snake Eyes’ deep dark non-secrets was revealed.

“Johnny gets wood when you hand him the bones.”

And, this is news?

Johnny McMyWayOrTheHighway has been driven by a contrarian, passive-aggressive, sociopathic and borderline demonic personality disorder since even before he crashed his third piece of Military Hardware.

Okay, so the Times used the story of how Johnny McMuckenfess combined his willingness to sell the power and authority of his Office to Jack Abranoff, Rick Davis, and the other 170 Lobbyists who now dominate his Campaign...with the fact that Little Johnny LetItRide has a Reserved Space at every Crap Table from the MGM Grand to the the Principality of Monaco.

And, this is news?

Sure, there were some interesting life parallels I found in the story, between Johnny TwoDogsScrewing and my own life. My first two legal clients were the Sac & Fox Tribes of Oklahoma and Nebraska, and the Pottawatomie Nation. And, I can assure you...that story would be far more interesting, and revealing, than the fact that Johnny Boxcars has a “Gambling Problem.”

If the selection of Sarah TundraTrash didn’t already scream out the need to have Johnny Foxwoods tattoo the word “1-800-Gambler” on either his forehead, or the seriously sagging cheeks inside of his Fruit of the Loom clad holding cell where his brain resides...well, somehow I don’t think anything the New York Times could add to that subject was going to change your vote.

In the meantime...The White House Press Machine was bound and determined to make sure that Asian Markets would not open without being completely assured that a bailout deal was finalized...whether it was finalized or not.

House republicans, all of which are up for re-election, and most of which are behind in the polls, would be willing to spout off, at least to each other, knowing that they could not stop their own President from cramming the deal up their collective back door...if for no other reason that to manufacture the only issue which may keep their own elections close.

Meanwhile...the rest of us begged our wives (or husbands) to move to Utah, so we could all marry Tina Fey in a mass ceremony just outside of Provo.

[dchill]

74. You can't possibly be talking about the same...

Johnny McCoot as the one who invented the Blackberry! Great post!

[pnwmom]

94. If your representatives represent you, when will you have GLBT rights in WV?

When hell freezes over?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

99. NOBODY knows diddly poo

Here's all I think I know:

$700B is an arbitrary and meaningless number. If we begin with a bailout, it will open the door for another money pit similar to funding the Iraq war, in that the federal government will be given the green light to continue to "fix" the problem by throwing more and more money at it. Borrowing from Rachel Maddow, giving Wall Street more money is tantamount to giving a 6 y/o more candy on Halloween AFTER he ate so much he made himself sick. Besides, the Wall Street bailout proponents don't know what they are talking about. Everyone is making things up as they go along, EVERYONE. The "shock" doctrine is being employed, yet again. Respond to a crisis by scaring the fearful and uninformed: trust us, we know better than you--NOBODY knows diddly poo. And in so doing, they will take care of their own and leave Main Street to foot the bill. In the end, the following two outcomes are equally as likely:

*Bailout Wall Street and let the markets correct for the hyperinflation (bubbles) and see massive layoffs.
*NO Wall Street bailout, let the markets correct for hyperinflation, see massive layoffs, become $700B poorer and reassure ourselves that it would have been much worse had we not acted.

Main Street should not pay for the sins of greedy Wall Street. After all, you only have to make a fortune once. These failed, unregulated financial instruments (CDS)--$6.2 TRILLION in 2000--would not have been invented if banks did not believe that a quick buck could be made. The symptom of a shortsighted SCHEME are housing foreclosures, but the source goes back to Wall Street greed.

Main Street, not Wall Street, needs relief. Homeowners (I'm not talking about "those millions of Americans with 2 homes and 2 Mercedes who created the problem") need to be protected from losing their homes and allowed to renegotiate their loans, the money needs to be poured into public works projects to create jobs. Remember, during the "great economic boom" that produced EXTRAORDINARY wealth for some, things like public schools and infrastructure were left to rot. (I don't know where to stop, so I'll stop here.)

[greyghost]

102. Spot on.

[Delphinus]

103. Let me know what kind of response you get

back from your "reps". So much for a representative democracy.

[LWolf]

104. When was the last time our reps represented us? nt

[greyghost]

107. Some class warfare anyone?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4114124&mesg_id=4114124

[Norrin Radd]

111. It's all part of the plan (of the powers that be). We get the Presidency, but lose the Congress

like under Clinton.

[Two Americas]

115. weird

You would never guess that the free marketeers here have won. Why aren't they happy with winning? Will they never be satisfied until they have buried all opposition? Until everyone either agrees with them, or is bludgeoned into oblivion?

Very odd.