Answer?

...suffers from "trying to get along" syndrome rather than behaving as a DEMOCRAT. THE Democratic driving force is liberal incomes for the vast majority. She checks this time and time again with worries, compromise, ruminations, etc. toward Conservative sensibilities.

She is certainly on my own personal chopping block. I do take care however not to do this at the expense of creating a vacuum for even greater Conservatism.

THE Economic problem in the USA is Conservatism: The lack of balance between the Mob and the Monopoly. Conservatism has taken over the Republican Party and infects the Democratic Party.

Jim

Ah, the "Independent" mind-set: "I vote for whomever I think will do the best job."

That's the spirit, just keep on voting as if it were a game of darts, and continue to allow the neoconservative Republicans to trample on our nation's civil rights, screw up the economy for profits, diminish our world stature, and demean everything else it used to represent to be an American. In case you have forgotten, Laws are passed, and enforced, by majority vote, and NOT by "whomever will do the best job" individuals, regardless of Party affiliation.

Like it, or not, we have evolved into a de facto two-Party system, and only Democrats have shown both the will, and the ability, to work for the betterment of ALL Americans. "Independents," and Greens have decided to re-invent the wheel, and form third-Parties which will be just as susceptible to infiltration by neoconservatives as our two major Parties, and in the end, they do nothing but dilute and divide the vote. "Independents" and Greens place their hopes and faith in an individual (that "best job" person) to take care of them. The reality is, that only a unified political Party holding a majority can make meaningful change. The neoconservative Republicans have proven that point for well over a decade.

The current neoconservative Republican Party, as transformed by Newt Gingrich and Ronny Raygun, has done nothing but attack our Constitution, and create an atmosphere of greed and corruption. Their PNAC/Heritage Foundation plan to corner the world's resources for their corporate sponsors was sold to the American public under the guise of "spreading democracy."

In reality, the current crop of Republicans are spreading nothing but classic Fascism. There is no Free Market, because our treasury is being used as a source of bottomless capital by neoconservative corporatist criminals.

There is not one Republican politician who is willing turn our nation back towards the light of the Constitution, and true regulated American Capitalism. There are many real Democratic politicians who would do so, and that statement does not recognize those faux-Democrats of the DLC who have infiltrated our Party, and are nothing more than neocon plants. Case-in-point: Joe Lieberman, the "Independent."

So go ahead and continue to stand on the outside as an "Independent," and refuse to take a stand. In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to do the heavy lifting necessary to rebuild the Democratic Party, and to restore a government for, by, and of, The People.

Nobody is saying NOTHING should be done.

When exactly is the right couple of days to FORCE conversation about who pays for this bailout? I remember how it was never the right time to discuss Iraq. Hmmm.

Best we panic and give in to any piece of shit agreement?

Jim

P.S.

-Oops we lost TRILLIONS in uncollected taxes from our Aristocrcy.

-Oops we lose a half TRILLION to increased gas prices per year of Conservative rule.

-Oops we lose a near TRILLION to Iraq (while abandoning our troops in Afghanistan).

-Oops we need to shell out a TRILLION for a bailout TODAY.

...this seems the perfect time to FORCE a conversation about TAXATION.

The kind that refills treasuries:

The Federal Deficit.

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Lack of taxation on the Aristocracy (compared to when it was collected during the Clinton Administration) AND pulling our troops from killing those who attacked us on 911, to seeking oil dollars for the few in Iraq, have left the USA vulnerable. Folks should pay for services rendered. Wars are fought to defend a Nations wealth. Folks should pay in proportion to the wealth they need defending. That is not happening.

My own thought for a zero sum game is:

-ZERO tax on necessary income -the first $65,000 made by every American.

-~35% tax on additional dollars (this relies, in part, on the econmic stimulis generated by getting capital to the vast majority).

Or one might try other specifics:

A Responsible Plan to Pay for Recovery: $900 Billion in New Revenue

Below is our 10-point program to pay for this broader bailout. This plan would generate $900 billion a year until the costs of the bailout and stimulus program are paid for.

1. A Securities Transaction Tax: $100 Billion

A fair plan to pay for the bailout should include a modest financial transaction tax on the buying and selling of stock and other financial products. A penny on every $4 invested would generate $100 billion a year. Other European countries already tax stock transactions, and these transaction taxes effectively discourage speculation.

2. A Wealth Tax Surcharge on Households with $10 Million: $300 billion

Congress should institute a modest wealth tax surcharge on households with a net worth of more than $10 million. These households currently own and control more than 20 percent of the nation's private wealth. They have realized huge gains from the manipulation of capital markets and the asset bubbles that created the current crisis. A modest surcharge -- no more than 3 percent -- could generate more than $300 billion.

3. A Corporate Minimum Income Tax: $60 Billion

In August, the Government Accountability Office reported that two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no income taxes between 1998 and 2005. These corporations paid nothing toward our shared expenses of defense, environmental protection, public health and education. Ordinary taxpayers should not be left holding this bag. A minimum corporate income tax should contribute toward the bailout.

.
.
.
.
.
.

9. A Progressive Inheritance Tax: $60 Billion

In the near future, the moguls of the past quarter-century will be passing off the scene and leaving behind dynastic-size fortunes. A portion of this wealth should be taxed. A progressive estate tax on estates over $2 million -- $4 million for a couple -- could generate $60 billion a year in the short term and much more in outlying decades.

10. The Elimination of the Mansion Subsidy: $20 Billion

Wealthy taxpayers can currently deduct their mansion mortgage interest off their taxes. The richest 2 percent of U.S. households do not need to be subsidized by American taxpayers. Capping the home mortgage interest deduction on that portion of mortgage payments that exceeds $200,000 per year would generate $20 billion a year.

Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, where he coordinates the Working Group on Extreme Inequality.

Dedrick Muhammad is a senior organizer and research associate at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of "40 Years Later: The Unrealized American Dream." Muhammad is also the "Racial Wealth Divide" coordinator at United for a Fair Economy and co-author of UFE's report "The State of the Dream: Enduring Disparities in Black and White."

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/100223/

For me, I see no point with band aids while nonsensical Republican/Conservative ideology still lives. This is a time to FORCE fast conversation ;)

Jim

Apparently it's OK by you for the proponents of this bill to predict a depression, massive bank failures, and other "the sky is falling" and fear mongering techniques to get what they want. Also, in your opinion by supporting this bill it's OK for a foreign bank to be able to transfer bad mortgages on foreign real estate just because they have a division stateside. Read below,

[i]
On the very same program on which Judd Gregg appeared, one of the Congressmen opposing it, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) also appeared. Hang on to your hats, because this may be the very reason even $700 billion won't be enough to do the job it's proposed to do. It provides bailouts to foreign investors too. Sherman said,
"...you have to read the bill. It's very clear. The Bank of Shanghai can transfer all of its toxic assets to the Bank of Shanghai of Los Angeles which can then sell them the next day to the Treasury. I had a provision to say if it wasn't owned by an American entity even a subsidiary, but at least an entity in the US, the Treasury can't buy it. It was rejected.

"The bill is very clear. Assets now held in China and London can be sold to US entities on Monday and then sold to the Treasury on Tuesday. Paulson has made it clear he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained a clear provision that said if Americans did not own the asset on September 20th that it can't be sold to the Treasury.

"Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out foreign investors. They know it, they demanded it and the bill has been carefully written to make sure that can happen."[/i]

So, please allow me to clear on this so that maybe you will not think this is just the posting of a Democrat that is against [u]all[/u] Republicans. I do not belong to either party and vote for whomever I think will do the best job. I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past and will in no doubt continue to do so in the future. I am only on this site because they are working to defeat this bill as I am. Realize that many Republicans voted against this bill to begin with so it is not a totally partisan issue.

So that aside and assuming there is some degree of truth in the above, I would like you or any other reader to give me one good reason why Paulson stated that he would recommend a veto if any such clause were included in this or any other bill and how that would be in the interest of Americans? Does that sound like his concern is [b]primarily[/b] for Americans? Not to me. A litmus test of this bill is to include such a clause, pass the bill, and see if Paulson (or whomever else) recommends a veto. If Bush vetoes it (for that stated reason) then IMO something is very amiss. Another test would be for Congress to tell us why such a clause could not, or was not included as per Sherman. I for one to not want to pay to bail out foreign banks. If it is that important to those countries then their citizen should deal with it. Note here that many of these foreign banks are in the mid-East and China, neither of which are my favorite countries.

Also, to be clear on my position, something should be done. Again IMO, this bill should be defeated as it is currently written, and Congress forced to stay in session until a better bill can be written. Again IMO, as this problem has been going on for more that a year now, I am very suspicious of the timing of the announcement of this bill, just before elections and just before Congress is set to adjourn. We let Congress (both parties) get away with far too much for my liking. They are supposed to be working in behalf of all Americans and not for those of [b]any[/b] self-interest group. That is not easily accomplished the way things are currently structured. By defeating this bill as it is currently written I believe it will send a message that many Americans are fed up with the nonsense that is occurring in both parties.

This is not the kind of America I remember and not the way I would like it to function in the future. IMO, we are tearing ourselves apart by operating in this manner, hence more justification for believing that "I have met the enemy and it is us".