OT - Is there a citizen backlash coming for congress passing 700 Billion $ Bailout? - Page 1

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Preston on 04 October 2008 - 05:10

Congress passed the bailout this last week.  First the House rejected the three page billed proposed to them by a banking industry insider who is not an economist, someone who was head of his bank during the years it went bad, appointed to be sec. of treas. The Senate came up with its own multi-hundred pages version with a lot of pork and passed it and sent it to the House for passage where it passed.  It has now been signed into law by the prez and the sec of treas will start greasing his cronies monday am.  Constituents were calling and emailing their senators and representtaive in ratios of between 50 to 1 and 100 to 1 against passage, but they were all threatened by admin with "martial law", panic in the streets and no pres. election.  Most of these constutuents are now furious and many will never vote for any senator or congresssman(women) who voted yes for this bad bill which is a sure formula for runaway inflation.

Here is an interesting video clip of Lyndon Larouche where he suggests that serious "french revolution type" rage is cooking away within the populace toward those that voted for this bill.  I cannot give credence to what Larouche postulates and I certainly am against any violence of any kind except self defense.  But I do believe that there is now some kind of  "vote em all out" backlash brewing away in the hearts of the masses.  Perhaps Congress has underestimated the public's anger toward being ripped off to the tune of 700 billion dollars and many may be voted out.

Larouche's main claim to fame was his international blockbuster "Dope Incorporated". This top selling expose of the narcotrafficking was first in english and has been translated into spanish.  It is the book that nearly drove "henry K." crazy. It is considered to be very accurate by many ex-dea agents and is highly respected in some south american countries.

A very credible inside source at a fairly high level recently told me 37 states are technically bankrupt right now and severe financial difficulties will be exposed in the press for these states soon.  Two who have just gone public with this the last three days (California and New York).  There are 35 more you may find out about in the media before Christmass or soon thereafter.  The bailout just passed won't help them, only the cutting of expenditures or raising taxes will (or the final soultion which gov't doesn't want to discuss>>>tap those secret CAFTE funds walter burien discovered in each state and city gov't. 

http://www.infowars.com/?p=5071


by Preston on 04 October 2008 - 05:10

In this video clip which is a bit hard to understand at times, Larouche claims that officials he knows have told him that there are folks in the administration that threatened congress members who might vote no on this bailout.  He also claimed that this bill's passage would cause hyper/runaway inflation and that there will be a great deal of anger among the masses of citizens. 

Larouche's allegations are most serious if they are true and the admin. has actually threatened congress members. I must say that many of the congress memmbers in the House of Rep. looked like scared rabbits or a deer in the headlights when interviewed before the house passed the bill Friday.  Perhaps they are afraid that if they didn't pass this bailout that they would be stuck with the current administration forever in a state of martial law.  How come army troopps are being brought home to serve in the community to supposedly help civilians with car accidents and in public service (a complete violation of posse commitatus act).  Like the article in Army Times stated an army official said that he hoped the troops wouldn't have to shoot any Americans.


BabyEagle4U

by BabyEagle4U on 04 October 2008 - 07:10

They are preparing for civil unrest because they know the economy is going to collapse. They want it to collapse.

.." this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities."  ~

 http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

This action CLEARLY violates the Posse Comitatus Act:

The whole text of the relevant legislation is as follows:
"Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Of course, in 2006, George Bush attempted to circumvent the rule of law and the constitution with this little dandy:

"HR5122 also known as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act was signed by the president on Oct 17, 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 1076 Text of Hr5122 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". Removing the legalese from the text, and combining multiple sentences, it provides that: The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. The actual text is on page 322-323 of the legislation. As of 2008, these changes were repealed, changing the text of the law back to the original 1878 wording, under Public Law 110-181 (H.R. 4986, Section 1068,) however in signing H.R. 4986 into law President Bush attached a signing statement which indicated that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

This is really no surprise as this president in particular has shown no concern for the rule of law or the constitution and seems determined to expand the power of the executive WELL beyond what the constitution allows.

In short - the constitution is dead.


"Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging." ~ Patrick Henry

 


BabyEagle4U

by BabyEagle4U on 04 October 2008 - 08:10


by ProudShepherdPoppa on 04 October 2008 - 14:10

This could very well be the catylist that pushes the American public over the edge.  Regardless of whether the bailout was good or bad we told them in no uncertain terms that we did NOT want it, but they voted for their banking buddies anyway.  They are called Representatives because their job is to represent US.


BabyEagle4U

by BabyEagle4U on 04 October 2008 - 15:10

O'Reilly going off on Frank.  Incase you missed it.  LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ


justcurious

by justcurious on 04 October 2008 - 15:10

i hope it is a catalyst.  i know most people are very unhappy; but so many people are struggling to 'make ends meet', and/or weak with chronic illnesses (and/or struggling with addictions) making most too tired and too unfocused to be very effective.  i think they have us just where they wants - in debt - and strong enough to work & pay taxes (supporting their lifestyle) but too weak to get ahead or stand up for ourselves.  this is a big power grab and i think warren buffet & phil gramm are key players.  i continue to recommend www.solari.com it can help with untangling from this insanity but beyond that i have no idea how to stop being used and unwttingly support those who diliberatly harm those whose very back they are standing on. it's very disheartening.


by Micky D on 04 October 2008 - 15:10


FYI - a little bit different perspective on our current financial mess:
 
Seattle Real Estate News
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/realestatenews/archives/150482.asp
Party like it's 1873

The national economy's current woes are less like the Great Depression than the Panic of 1873, according to a new article in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

"When commentators invoke 1929, I am dubious," writes Scott Reynolds Nelson, a professor of history at the College of William and Mary. "According to most historians and economists, that depression had more to do with overlarge factory inventories, a stock-market crash, and Germany's inability to pay back war debts, which then led to continuing strain on British gold reserves. None of those factors is really an issue now."

Nelson continues: "In fact, the current economic woes look a lot like what my 96-year-old grandmother still calls 'the real Great Depression.' She pinched pennies in the 1930s, but she says that times were not nearly so bad as the depression her grandparents went through. That crash came in 1873 and lasted more than four years."

Quick version: Starting around 1870, European rulers "supported a flowering of new lending institutions that issued mortgages for municipal and residential construction, especially in the capitals of Vienna, Berlin, and Paris. Mortgages were easier to obtain than before, and a building boom commenced. Land values seemed to climb and climb; borrowers ravenously assumed more and more credit, using unbuilt or half-built houses as collateral."

But Midwestern U.S. farmers were busy undercutting exporters from Russia and Central Europe in markets like Britain, the biggest importer of wheat. That unraveled the basis for Europe's boom.

"As continental banks tumbled, British banks held back their capital, unsure of which institutions were most involved in the mortgage crisis," Nelson writes. "The cost to borrow money from another bank -- the interbank lending rate -- reached impossibly high rates."

The crisis crossed the Atlantic in the fall of 1873, first hitting U.S. railroad companies, which had "crafted complex financial instruments that promised a fixed return, though few understood the underlying object that was guaranteed to investors in case of default. (Answer: nothing)."

The stock market crashed in September, and hundreds of banks closed over the next three years.

Tycoons such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller had enough capital reserves to finance continuing growth and gobbled up competitors at fire-sale prices. Unemployment hit 25 percent in New York City. In Central and Eastern Europe, many blamed the crisis on foreign banks and Jews.

"If there are lessons from 1873, they are different from those of 1929," Nelson says. "Most important, when banks fall on Wall Street, they stop all the traffic on Main Street -- for a very long time."

Those with cash reserves may be the winners. Scapegoating of immigrants may reignite protectionism


BabyEagle4U

by BabyEagle4U on 04 October 2008 - 16:10

NEW YORK - The credit markets finally got a bailout bill, but the stranglehold hasn't let up — a troubling sign that lenders and investors believe the package will only be a baby step in the long road to economic recovery.

Overall, market participants have begun regarding the rescue plan as a medicine for what's ailing the financial system, but not a cure-all.

"At best, we can hope that it stems some of the more intense risk from the credit crisis. It prevents things from spiraling out of hand here," said JPMorgan Chase economist Michael Feroli.

Some are worried, though, that the plan will not work at all.

"Nobody knows how it's going to succeed," said Howard Simons, strategist with Bianco Research in Chicago. "It seems the American public had better sense than Wall Street and Washington — the American public said, don't throw good money after bad."

(cont)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_on_bi_ge/credit_markets;_ylt=AmDmVgL_7YlfdBJjvfPPSYqyBhIF

... hyperinflation here we come.    Ohh wait .. can't inflation be exported ?


RatPackKing

by RatPackKing on 05 October 2008 - 01:10

Lets start cleaning up some terminology

The problem did not start because of deregulation. It started because of hyper-regulation: Because Democrats did not think it was "fair" that only people who have saved a lot of money and have reliable income sources should get loans, the Democrats forced through policies mandating that banks must give loans to those who normally would be poor risks (those famous subprime loans). What kept banks from squawking about being forced by the government to engage in practices that no sound business would ever engage in was the fact that Fannie and Freddie (staffed at the upper level by Democrats) promised to buy those loans, insure them, and sell them. Well, with an offer like that, the Banks couldn't refuse, and they went hog wild. It was a no loss for them, and a huge incentive (because of these government regulations, not deregulations) to give out as many bad loans as possible.

What Bush and McCain and other Republicans started calling for a few years ago wasn't deregulation (although that would have been a good idea considering the disaster that was looming with Democratic interference in the market) but, instead, some oversight. That is, given that the government was bossing the market around, at least it should investigate to see what the result was and make sure everyone was playing honestly (including Fannie and Freddie).

Sensible Republicans are still calling for more policing. They understand that the smart money is on letting the market function normally, which will prevent handing out insane loans that are doomed to failure, and which will ensure that housing prices curve with inflation, rather than soaring above inflation. The government's involvement should be limited to ensuring that the lenders are acting honestly (no cheating, no discrimination).

So, let's get things clear here: The problem was too much regulation (not deregulation), with the Democrats forcing the banks to give bad loans. The Republicans certainly wanted less regulation, but what they were calling for in the past (and what the intelligent ones seek now) is government policing or oversight, which is an appropriate role for the government in a national money market.

 

RPK






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top