"Yes, and they should. Because ... if a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution," Paulson said on ABC television's "This Week with George Stephanopolous."
(You're being played)
Sunday, September 21, 2008
U.S. taxpayers bailout foreign financial institutions and even foreign governments
Paulson wants to give US taxpayer money to foreign banks and governments.
So what should be done?
Well, let’s think about how, until Paulson hit the panic button, the private sector was supposed to work this out: financial firms were supposed to recapitalize, bringing in outside investors to bulk up their capital base. That is, the private sector was supposed to cut off the problem at stage 2.
It now appears that isn’t happening, and public intervention is needed. But in that case, shouldn’t the public intervention also be at stage 2 — that is, shouldn’t it take the form of public injections of capital, in return for a stake in the upside?
It now appears that isn’t happening, and public intervention is needed. But in that case, shouldn’t the public intervention also be at stage 2 — that is, shouldn’t it take the form of public injections of capital, in return for a stake in the upside?
No. Blank. Checks. For. Crooks.
TO CLARIFY. Look, right now the choice is, Bush's Plan, or Something Else. Kill Bush's Plan now, worry about Something Else later.
conservatives are 'fraidy cats,"
"People who support socially protective policies — which, yes, can be interpreted as people taking a conservative position on those policies — are more sensitive to environmental threat."
conservatives are 'fraidy cats,"
"People who support socially protective policies which, yes, can be interpreted as people taking a conservative position on those policies are more sensitive to environmental threat."
Saturday, September 20, 2008
A study of Chimpy's base - Conservatives unified in their mutual hate
Fueled by fear of a dangerous world, encouraged by unjustified extreme self-righteousness, they are predisposed to cause harm, and display general fear, and malicious aggressiveness when sanctioned by authority.
Extreme self-righteousness: see themselves as far more moral and upstanding than others (yet the opposite is true); these false beliefs are theorized to be aided by their religiosity and it's guilt-evaporation mechanisms (like Confession) which appear to "wear down" their conscience, by leaving them 'guilt-free', and thus contributing to a remarkable self-righteousness, which unleashes their aggression. They believe they are right, holy, and pure and wish to smite down their enemies by fair or foul means.
"Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the [conservative] president said it was necessary 'for freedom'."(p.56) As distasteful as these qualities appear, for authoritarians they can be (secretly or even openly) very attractive.
Highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education,
narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily.
Against freedom, anti-equality, anti-democratic, cold-blooded, ruthless, amoral, power-hungry, proto-fascist, Machiavellian, liars. Narrowly limited by inability to see the world from any other point of view. Have very little self-awareness. Do not realize as undesirable *any* of the many things research has discovered about them, and in the inverse of the reality, think they are "the good people". Have very compartmentalized minds, so they can suppress whatever they wish, whenever.
A much smaller number of them also strongly display the attributes of their leaders, of social dominators: highly amoral and dominating people who want to be submitted to, believe strongly in inequality, desire personal power. Typically men, often very cruel, ruthless, pitiless, unfeeling, unsympathetic, highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic), with conservative economic and political ideology. Again, they use many of these terms to describe themselves. Sober academic researchers call these people "particularly scary". They report going to church only for image and contacts.
Right and wrong are irrelevant to them. They value the ability to lie convincingly. Manipulative, tell others what they want to hear, create false images to sell self. Dishonest, cheat to win and call victims "suckers". "Hitlerian." Faintly hedonistic. Vengeful. Intimidating and bullying. Nationalistic.
Only a few of the followers can become aware of these qualities, and those few can sometimes do work to change their outlook and behavior. The social dominators, however, have proven unable to make such adjustments.
Extreme self-righteousness: see themselves as far more moral and upstanding than others (yet the opposite is true); these false beliefs are theorized to be aided by their religiosity and it's guilt-evaporation mechanisms (like Confession) which appear to "wear down" their conscience, by leaving them 'guilt-free', and thus contributing to a remarkable self-righteousness, which unleashes their aggression. They believe they are right, holy, and pure and wish to smite down their enemies by fair or foul means.
"Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the [conservative] president said it was necessary 'for freedom'."(p.56) As distasteful as these qualities appear, for authoritarians they can be (secretly or even openly) very attractive.
Highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education,
narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily.
Against freedom, anti-equality, anti-democratic, cold-blooded, ruthless, amoral, power-hungry, proto-fascist, Machiavellian, liars. Narrowly limited by inability to see the world from any other point of view. Have very little self-awareness. Do not realize as undesirable *any* of the many things research has discovered about them, and in the inverse of the reality, think they are "the good people". Have very compartmentalized minds, so they can suppress whatever they wish, whenever.
A much smaller number of them also strongly display the attributes of their leaders, of social dominators: highly amoral and dominating people who want to be submitted to, believe strongly in inequality, desire personal power. Typically men, often very cruel, ruthless, pitiless, unfeeling, unsympathetic, highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic), with conservative economic and political ideology. Again, they use many of these terms to describe themselves. Sober academic researchers call these people "particularly scary". They report going to church only for image and contacts.
Right and wrong are irrelevant to them. They value the ability to lie convincingly. Manipulative, tell others what they want to hear, create false images to sell self. Dishonest, cheat to win and call victims "suckers". "Hitlerian." Faintly hedonistic. Vengeful. Intimidating and bullying. Nationalistic.
Only a few of the followers can become aware of these qualities, and those few can sometimes do work to change their outlook and behavior. The social dominators, however, have proven unable to make such adjustments.
There used to be a word for a political ideology that turns love of country into a vicious, fanatical nationalism. Their used to be a word to describe a political philosophy that elevates to the point of obsession a politician's charisma over the substance of her/his ideas. There once was a word for a state that suppressed dissent and free speech by incarceration and violent beatings.
That word today is America.
1. fascist
1. Someone who believes in a totalitarian state rule by a supreme leader (dictator) who controls everything possible and treats people harshly -- to gain the leader's own success,* to foment an aggressive military nationalism, and to promote a Social Darwinist belief that hard life strengthens the state by weeding out the weak.
2. A lesser authority (corporation, mayor, cop, boss, parent) who legally issues harsh, burdensome, micro-managing, insensitive, or uncaring orders -- especially when they know, or should know, that their goals can be accomplished with more autonomy and much less hardship or distress.
Friday, September 19, 2008
They don't respect you and they don't want to have to pretend they do.
Their end game isn't to make you a harder-working and better person, it's to avoid having to show you any respect. They don't respect you and they don't want to have to pretend they do. They want you to show them deference and they know you won't do that if you feel like a free person in a free society who doesn't have to take crap from some petty tyrant who thinks you should feel honored to kiss his ring. Republicans are pissed off because it's so hard to get good help these days - help that knows they are just the help, that knows their place, that uses the servants' entrance and calls them "sir" and doesn't question them. A strong middle-class - that is, a secure workforce - gets bolshy and tells abusive employers to bugger off, and the ruling class doesn't like that.
California Field Poll: Bush simply wasn't up to the job
Gee, who could have imagined that a life long fuck up coud be such a failure? Huh...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)