About This Blog
Another week, another GOP presidential candidates debate. The only thing different about this debate was the teevee network it was on. The Bloomberg Network. What struck me as different was all the Pete Peterson Foundation ads during commercial breaks. The ones which call for abolishing Social Security and Medicare. So fitting for a Republican Party debate.
One highlight of note....Newt Gingrich, a truly walking, talking embarrassment, called last night for the incarceration of Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. For the crime of legislating.
“If you want to put people in jail, you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd,”
Big banksters and other paper shufflers who make their fortunes by "skimming" the transactions of millions of Americans, don't like the new Dodd-Frank bank regulatory legislation passed before the TEA Party blitzkreig hit the House in 2010. While Dodd-Frank is timid in its approach to re-regulating an openly immoral industry, it it better than nothing at all....but banksters, and Republicans,....hate it.
In the American Age of the Oligarchs, even timid checks and balances on the skimmers is just too much for Republican "idea" guys like Newton. In fact, all of the GOP candidates last night were in favor of simply handing the remaining keys to America over to the richest and most powerful 1%.
All GOP candidates called for the continued deregulation of American industry. Every situation is an opportunity for Republican leaders to call for deregulation of American industry. Good economies or bad....the Republican Party is always looking to help the richest and most powerful few get richer and more powerful.
Despite the Newton's quackery, it was under Gingrich's own House guidance, during the 90's, when the insane idea that banks could police themselves...won the day....and investment banks were deregulated to create a shadow banking system where impossible money exchange schemes, like credit default swaps, were spawned. If government was at fault in the economic crash of 2008, it was from deregulating...not regulating....the banksters during the 90's.
But who gives a damn about Gingrich? He's a nut and always has been.
What about the actual GOP candidate for president next fall, Mitt Romney? Will TEA Party insurrectionists come out to vote for a Mormon candidate who says stuff like this.....
GOLDMAN: So would you or would you not be open to another Wall Street bailout?
ROMNEY: No one likes the idea of a Wall Street bailout. I certainly don't.
GOLDMAN: But you said in 2008 that it prevented the collapse of the financial --
ROMNEY: There is no question but that the action of President Bush and that Secretary Paulson took was designed to keep not just a collapse of individual banking institutions, but to keep the entire currency of the country worth something and to keep all the banks from closing, and to make sure we didn't all lose our jobs. My experience tells me that we were on the precipice, and we could have had a complete meltdown of our entire financial system, wiping out all the savings of the American people. So action had to be taken.
Was it perfect? No. Was it well implemented? No, not particularly.
Were there some institutions that should not have been bailed out? Absolutely.
Should they have used the funds to bail out General Motors and Chrysler? No, that was the wrong source for that funding. But this approach of saying, look, we're going to have to preserve our currency and maintain America -- and our financial system is essential.
No matter how you translate the Plastic Man's words.....Romney would have done exactly what George W. Bush did in late 2008. Mitt Romney, then, given a similar future banking crisis, would come to the aid of the same banksters that blew up our national economy with their reckless and greedy behavior. Romney isn't for bail outs.....unless they're for the banksters....then he's for them. Not automakers.....just banksters.
I wonder what TEA Party members are thinking about Romney's answer on the bank bailouts. The TEAS, the principled libertarian dreamers that they are, wanted to allow the banks to fail in 2008. Let them go belly up, the TEAs recommended. So what, if 25% unemployment was the result. So what, if soup lines were the only growth industries. TEAs are principled, by god. Libertarian dreamscape principles must be upheld....no matter how many millions must suffer.
Finally, relish the weasel-dom of Mr. Mitt Romney. You see, Romney was FOR the bankster bailouts.....but....he was against how those bailouts were "implemented." This is a distinction without a difference, as it were. Congress had no vote on "implementation" in the fall of 2008. The vote was on whether or not the banksters should be bailed out. Romney would have voted with the majority.
Mitt Romney, regardless of the meaningless nuances he would have brought to the "implementation" of said bailout......was all in favor of the bailouts. TEA Party Republicans, as a rule, were against the bankster bailouts. So, if TEAs vote for Mitt Romney next fall....won't they actually be voting again for George W. Bush....a GOP president whom the TEAs now claim was too liberal?
Of course they will be. You gotta' hand it to the TEAs though.....they simply will not budge when it comes to their principles.