Two Septembers

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Two Septembers
8
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 12:53pm

I remember a September seven years ago. An event took place in the financial capital of America that shocked most Americans. Many simply could not believe what they were seeing. The administration in charge of the executive branch asked for, and got, unprecidented power. Also, unreviewable power. And secret power. New agencies were created, new powers for old agencies were granted, and much, if not all, that the executive branch did was off limits to criticism. There was no real Congressional oversight, there was to be no review by the courts and there was also no final price tag as to what this would cost the American people.


We are now in another September. An event has taken place in the financial captial of America that has shocked most Americans. Many simply can't believe that they are seeing. There is another crisis. The administration in charge of the executive branch is asking for unprecidented power, unreviewable power and, so it would seem, secret power. If the administration gets its way, old agencies will be granted new powers, there is to be no criticism of the acts of the executive branch, there is to be no Congressional oversight, there is to be no review by the courts and there is no final price tag as to what this is to cost the American people.


I am an American. My governing document, the U.S. Constitution, begins, "We, the people..." I think there should be some oversight by Congress. I think there should be some review by the courts. I think the power needs to limited. I think there should be criticism by the people. I think there needs to be transparency, so I can see what is going on.


The last September, people who wanted to review things, who wanted to think things through, who offered other ideas, were shouted down by the mob, driven into a panic whipped up by this administration. And here we are again. This time, I think maybe Congress needs to add a few restraints and reviews to this process. I think maybe we ought to step back and take a few days and see just exactly what is going on, before we sign away any more of our rights.


Once upon a time, there was a little boy who cried...


Well, you know the rest.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2008
In reply to: olddude50
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 12:58pm
Amen - well said!
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2006
In reply to: olddude50
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 1:07pm

Very good points!


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
In reply to: olddude50
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 1:11pm
We all need to take a deep breath as you suggest.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
In reply to: olddude50
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 1:15pm

Yes!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
In reply to: olddude50
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 2:00pm
I feel that before the Senate, Congress or the President do anything, "Heads should roll".
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
In reply to: olddude50
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 2:15pm
Yeah....that was the part that really whacked me about the head and neck about this Bush-proposed bailout, too:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.


Paulson seems like a relatively decent guy, but just on principle, I don't think handing ANYONE seven hundred billion dollars to dole out as they see fit is such a great idea. And that's not even getting INTO the fact that what we're essentially doing here is buying bad debt and "assets" which are either completely worthless or worth much less than they were "valued" at by the Wizards of Wall Street™ - those financial solons whose perspicacity and wisdom we are Not Supposed To Question - and not getting ANYTHING in return for it, literally.

In the wake of the collapse of the S&Ls and its attendant $125bn bailout by the government/taxpayers (which, in today's dollars, would be about $209bn, so you can have an idea of just how large the proposed $700bn bailout we're currently considering is, by comparison), the government created the RTC (Resolution Trust Corp.) to handle the process. But the difference between then and now (other than, you know, the 330% larger AMOUNT of money that taxpayers will be on the hook for) is that, under the RTC, the government seized (took over) S&Ls which had ALREADY FAILED (i.e. - paid the "ultimate" price, for investors and owners and customers alike), and THEN sold off whatever consolidated, REAL assets remained. In THIS monstrous bailout, we're not even actually dismantling these companies/industries like we did back then; we're simply agreeing, every single one of us (and our kids, too) to BUY these assets at what THEY overvalued them at, in order to keep these irresponsible financial entities from collapsing, and allowing them to "retain liquidity." Problem is, this isn't a liquidity crisis, it's an insolvency crisis. I don't believe that an unmitigated disaster should be allowed to unfold without any intervention or oversight whatsoever on the part of the government, but I certainly think that the current language of unreviewable - literally - powers granted to Paulson at his sole discretion (like dispensation of that amount of money) is unwise, to say the least. Especially when you factor in the knowledge that Republicans are already angling to prohibit language in the bill which provides any further relief for borrowers facing foreclosure, or protection for taxpayers either, for that matter. This will be - if Republicans get their way - a straight-up SOCIALISM-IN-REVERSE transfer of $700 BILLION DOLLARS from the average homeowner and taxpayer directly to the people who wrote laws dismantling depression-era firewalls preventing just such shenanigans by banks and lenders, and the Wall Street fixers who took those new powers and directly engineered this disaster.





But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
- Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 2nd. ed., 1841


But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2007
In reply to: olddude50
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 2:22pm

Yep, we've been down this road before and each time the administration attempts to grab as much limitless power as they can get their hands on.


Nobody should be fooled by their dog and pony show. We can pass intelligent bailout legislation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm8txY989Iw

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2007
In reply to: olddude50
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 2:40pm
Great post. You're absolutely right.